Bill Siksay

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member in this debate. I want to ask her about the vulnerable refugee claimants that she was speaking about in her speech. She was talking about women who were victims of sexual assault and that was part of why they had sought refuge in Canada. She also mentioned gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks who might have faced violence in their home countries and who were fleeing to Canada to find safety and security.

There has been concern raised about the eight day timeline for the original interview and that many people coming to Canada, especially the people who are most vulnerable, like the people she was talking about, would have difficulty in that interview, talking with an authority figure when, in their home country, that was probably the last kind of person to whom they would give the personal details of their situation.

Could the hon. member talk about any concern she might have about the timing of that original interview, given the vulnerabilities of some of the people who will be making refugee claims in Canada?

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the refugee appeal division.

We have heard about a refugee appeal division for quite some time. It was part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that was passed in this House in 2001, but a Liberal government and the Conservative government have refused to implement it. There were all kinds of excuses. At one point it was said to be too expensive to implement that particular appeal, even though information that was provided said that it was not a particularly expensive level of appeal to establish in the existing refugee legislation.

I would just like to ask the member why he thinks we should have any confidence that the new proposal for a refugee appeal division would be implemented, when it has been the law since 2001, and no government has actually put it in place?

[Balanced Refugee Reform Act, April 26th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the minister's speech this morning is very helpful in this discussion.

He was right to point out that citizens of Canada are very active participants in our refugee system. The private sponsorship program is one example of that. However, he knows there are many individuals and organizations in every community in Canada that are actively engaged in refugee resettlement and sponsorship. I am glad the minister said he is open to reasonable amendments to the legislation, because there have been many suggestions around that.

Unfortunately, this is a refugee bill that was presented without significant prior consultation. In the past, the pattern has been that there has been specific consultation on proposed legislation. That did not happen this time.

It has generated many requests to the minister that before we begin this second reading debate, the legislation be referred to committee so that the broadest possible discussion could happen, the broadest number of revisions and suggestions could be considered at committee. Unfortunately, by beginning the second reading debate this morning, the minister has clearly denied that request and said that there will not be that very open and broad discussion at committee.

I am just wondering why the minister has apparently shut the door on that kind of consultation and vigorous discussion of the legislation at committee.

[Canada Labour Code, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave). I thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for tabling this important legislation.

The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to take unpaid leave from work for the following family-related reasons: (a) the inability of their minor child to carry on regular activities because the child suffers a serious physical injury during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence; (b) the disappearance of their minor child; (c) the suicide of their spouse, common-law partner or child; and (d) the death of their spouse, common-law partner or child during the commission or as the direct result of a criminal offence.

The bill would also amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow these employees to receive benefits while on leave.

Very clearly I support this bill. It is a very important improvement to our social service network in Canada. I support the bill because I believe it is a significant measure that would help people who are victims of crime.

We hear a lot of talk in this place, especially from the Conservatives, about supporting victims of crime, but here we have a measure that is a real and tangible assistance. It is very important to note that the member for Compton—Stanstead has gone out ahead of the pack, ahead of the government on this issue and developed an idea that has real meaning for victims of crime.

Helping people in these circumstances, when someone they love, a child, a spouse or partner, is directly affected by a criminal act or when they take their own life is most appropriate. It is one of those areas where we, working collectively as a community, can act to be of significant assistance.

Ensuring that people have time, that their employment is protected and that they have income, while they deal with the consequences of a serious crime, is a good thing. The member for Compton—Stanstead put it very well in her speech, when she said:

We know very well that suicide, violent crimes and disappearances are tragic events that are very difficult for the families of the victims. These events cause great psychological distress for many relatives and parents. The victims’ families wait and worry, mourn and frequently feel depressed, often over extended periods of time. In cases of murders and disappearances in particular, more than two years can pass between the criminal act and the resolution of the investigation. During this period, family members are deeply affected. They cannot pursue their regular activities. They have access to support and help, but they have no financial support. Additional financial worries are the last thing they need.

The member put it very eloquently in that quote from her speech in the first hour of debate on the bill. We know there are many needs associated when families are victims of crime in our society. We know there are many ways we can offer assistance. We know there are gaps in that assistance. The bill goes a significant way to fill one of those major gaps.

There are some people who would say that we cannot afford such a measure, and we have heard that kind of commentary from the government benches. I would say we cannot do without it. We cannot afford not to do it. It is very important.

Others will say that it is too generous, that it places too much of a demand on employment insurance resources. That is nonsense.

We know that in the past the federal government has collected far more in EI premiums and employer contributions than was ever spent on the program. I think $57 billion is the figure to be exact. That money could have easily be spent on improving the EI program, protecting workers, supporting families and communities, but Liberals and Conservatives used it to pay off the deficit that they were responsible for running up.

We could have had a program that supported workers during a recession. We could have expanded EI to assist workers when their families were victims of crime. However, no, that money was taken from workers and employers. We were told it would be used for EI, but it used for another purpose altogether. That was not right or fair.

The bill before us today shows us an appropriate use for the EI fund. I doubt that few workers, when pressed, would not support helping others in the way the bill proposes.

The current Conservative government seems to be heading down that road again, where we are increasing premiums for workers and employers, increasing the payroll taxes that they pay for EI. That measure was announced in the recent budget, and it will come in this coming year. Employers and employees will pay more into the EI program starting next year, there again, building a new surplus in the program. It is predicted to balloon to $19 billion in only a few years.

This might be okay if the money were being directed toward improvements in the EI program, but there is no guarantee of that in what has been proposed. If more people were made eligible for EI, if the qualifying periods were reduced, that would be a good thing, but that is not what will go on here. If the benefits paid to unemployed people were improved, that would be a good thing, but, again, that is not what has been proposed with this increase. If the waiting period were eliminated, that would be a good thing too, but, again, that is not proposed by the government with its increase in payroll taxes.

We know that is not the intention of what will happen with the increase in EI premiums. Again, we are about to face 800,000 Canadians ending their EI claims, coming off EI in the next few months and there is no program in place to extend that, no program to continue or extend support for those people. Many Canadians are going to be in crisis as a result of that. If we were using the resources that are collected from Canadian workers and employers to improve the EI program, that would be one thing, but there is no plan to do that.

I think Canadian workers and employers would accept increases if they knew there was a benefit to be had, if there were a benefit to workers who might lose their job, if there were a benefit to employers to ensure that the people who work for them would be taken care of, if there were a benefit to communities to ensure that people would continue to have an income to spend in those communities to support other businesses and local economies. There is not much question that Canadian workers and employers would support that kind of program.

The bill would provide a very specific benefit. It would provide benefits to workers and families who have been victims of crime. We know that is a very significant moment in anyone's life and it is a time when they can use all the support and consideration that can be mustered for them. The bill would be a significant addition to that.

We know employers would benefit from this kind of measure. Employers would not necessarily lose employees in whom they might have invested training, who knows their business, who knows how to do the job. If they are the victim of a crime and are forced to leave that position, there is a loss to employers, a loss to a business in that situation. The bill would help to ensure that does not happen in the future.

The bill would also assist communities because communities want to help people who are in these circumstances. They want to ensure that their neighbours are taken care of. They want to ensure that the people next door have the support they need when this kind of tragedy strikes them. The bill would provide those benefits. Therefore, it is a very significant measure in that way.

I am happy the Canadian Labour Congress has supported an earlier version of the bill. I am sure it supports this bill too. It knows it is a measure that supports Canadian workers and improves the lives of workers and communities. It knows it supports the Canadian economy, that it supports Canadian employers and that is why it has given this measure its support.

We know it is of limited scope. The Canada Labour Code, unfortunately, only affects certain workers in Canada, workers in federal jurisdiction, people who work in transportation, communications and banking for instance. However, this would set a new standard for support of workers, one that hopefully other provinces will copy. We know Quebec has certain programs in place already, but this will stimulate activity to support families and workers who are the victims of crime in other jurisdictions. It is a measure on which we should move forward.

Again, I want to thank the member for introducing the legislation and I am happy to say that I will be supporting it.

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.

Let me say from the outset that I have very serious concerns about this legislation. That will not come as a surprise to many people given my concerns about the approach of the Conservative government to criminal justice issues generally. I have expressed that concern on many occasions here in the House.

There is a body of opinion, some represented here in the House and more broadly in the community, that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does require some tweaking. It is not an old piece of legislation but it is a piece of legislation that does need attention. There are people who think some minor aspects of it need some attention. However, I think the bill before us goes way beyond tweaking and way beyond fixing the small problems with the act that need attention. The bill contains some very significant changes.

Here is how some of the bill's key provisions have been described.

The bill would make protection of society the primary goal of the act. The bill adds denunciation and deterrence to the sentencing provisions. That is a very significant addition. The bill would require the court to consider lifting the publication ban on the names of young offenders convicted of violent offences when youth sentences are given. It is very important to note that the government has also changed the definition of violent offences and serious violent offences in this legislation.

The bill would require police forces to keep records of extrajudicial measures used to deal with young persons in order to make it easier to identify patterns of reoffending. I will speak about that later.

The bill proposes to detain youth charged with a serious offence while he or she awaits a trial.

The bill would allow custody of young persons where they have committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of extrajudicial sanctions.

Finally, among other provisions, there is a provision that would require offenders under the age of 18 who are sentenced to custody to be placed in youth facilities only, even if they receive an adult sentence.

The last provision in this legislation is the one that is clearly supportable. It marks a huge turnaround for the Conservatives. It comes after they blew it in the last election when folks in Quebec in particular made it clear that they thought youth should not be doing time in adult prisons. That was a significant issue in the last federal election campaign.

I am concerned, however, that the burden of implementing this provision falls to provincial governments, and the federal government has not indicated if it will assist them to assure it is fully implemented. Without that kind of assistance, it could easily be an empty promise.

Even the best part of this bill, ensuring that youth are not sentenced and serve time in an adult prison, could very well be inoperative without a specific commitment from the government to assist provinces to implement that provision.

I do have very serious questions about other provisions in the bill.

Our justice system has always held that youth must be treated differently with respect to criminal justice issues. Children are not adults. We assume they do not have the same maturity as adults. We know they rarely appreciate the consequences of their actions when they break the law. The distinction between how we deal with adults and youth and child criminals must be maintained and not weakened. This is an important principle of our criminal justice system.

It is particularly true when we limit the rights of children in other ways. For instance, we do not allow them to participate in the democratic process in this country until they are 18.

If we are treating children as adults in the criminal justice system, we are not giving them a say in developing the rules of that system until they have become an adult. That is an indication of the unfairness of this kind of proposal.

The bill would make a significant change to the goals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This bill would place protection of society as the primary goal of the act rather than accountability for the youth who are convicted, rather than the promotion of rehabilitation, and rather than support for crime prevention.

There is no doubt that in criminal justice matters the protection of society has to be a key goal, but I believe that by making it the primary goal of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is a step in the wrong direction.

We must never write off young people. We must do all we can to ensure their rehabilitation after they have committed a crime. We must put the restoration of their relationship with their community after a criminal conviction as they key goal of our youth criminal justice system. If we want a primary goal or a key goal, that is the goal that should be in place.

Placing the protection of society first, especially when the current Conservative government often uses protection of society as a euphemism for being tough on crime and more punitive, runs contrary to what youth criminal justice should be about.

There has been some considerable debate already about this legislation. Here is what a recent Toronto Star editorial says on this issue:

What Sébastien's Law would do, though, is change the tone of our youth criminal justice system from rehabilitation and reintegration to punishment and public shaming.

This is particularly troubling given the likelihood that the bill will do nothing to reduce crime but may, in fact, turn more juvenile offenders into hardened criminals and cost taxpayers plenty to keep them locked up.

The government says it will “make protection of society a primary goal of the legislation.”

But legal experts argue compellingly that this can't be done by tinkering with our criminal justice system. Harsher sentences, particularly for impulsive and immature young people, do not make offenders think twice about committing crimes, says criminologist and youth-justice expert Nicholas Bala.

Contrary to the government's assertions, this view is supported by evidence both here and in the United States, the poster child for tough-on-crime laws that have cost taxpayers billions without actually helping to reduce crime.

That is what the Toronto Star said in a recent editorial. It has used very strong language to say that the bill is about punishment and public shaming, and not about rehabilitation and reintegration. It is very, very troubling.

Other commentators have also been very critical of the bill. The Montreal Gazette looked at the changes to sentencing that are included in this legislation. It noted in an editorial that it had concerns about the provision that would allow the courts to take into consideration so-called extrajudicial sanctions, and here is what it said on that specific issue:

A sentencing judge would be allowed, for example, to take into account previous “extra-judicial sanctions”—warnings or referrals to community agencies—that were not subject to a court hearing and did not result in a formal criminal conviction.

By their very nature, extra-judicial measures do not involve a careful sifting of evidence, or even the opportunity for a young person to mount a proper defence. To base a prison sentence on such informal interventions is contrary to the normal course of justice. The very goal of informal sanctions is to give young people another chance. No family would go along with extra-judicial measures if there is a risk they will be used against a youngster at any time in the future. In one fell swoop an approach that has amply proven its worth could be undermined.

That is what the Montreal Gazette, in an editorial, said about the whole issue of how the government is proposing to use extrajudicial sanctions when it comes to sentencing a young person. I think again it is very, very strong language and very troubling.

Overall, the Montreal Gazette gave a big thumbs-down to the bill. In the editorial, it concluded:

The thrust of this bill, unfortunately, is to move away from rehabilitation and toward retribution.

It also said:

This legislation still appears to be driven by ideology and political showmanship, not by research or common sense.

It says that it should go back to the drawing board.

That is another editorial board of an important Canadian newspaper that has looked at this legislation and in very strong language has criticized it and said, in fact, that it should be withdrawn because of the serious problems.

[Nuclear Non-Proliferation, April 23rd, 2010]

Mr. speaker, there is a treaty banning chemical weapons and one banning biological weapons. However, so far, no similar effort has been successful to ban nuclear weapons. The danger they pose cannot be underestimated.

Over 500 members of the Order of Canada continue to press the government in their campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons. They have joined the UN Secretary-General in calling for the negotiation of a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Will Canada support a nuclear weapons convention? Better still, will Canada seek a leadership position in its negotiation?

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity). I want to thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for bringing it forward.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that I will be voting for this bill and that I support the right to die with dignity. This will come as no surprise to my constituents, since my support for such legislation is something I have made clear on many occasions, both before and after I was first elected.

I have heard from many constituents concerned about this issue and this particular bill. Here is how some expressed their concern. I am quoting from a letter I received: “There are many members of our community who live with disabilities, with terminal illness, with depression, and in various stages of physical or mental decline. They suffer and must not be pressured into feeling an obligation to die because they are burdens to others. They have a right to proper and adequate treatment, pain management, and compassionate end of life care. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, disguised as pain relief and meant to kill, have no place as optional treatment plans.”

I can agree with much in that statement but obviously not all. Any legalization of assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia must not be about pressure. It must not be about making someone feel they are a burden to society or to their family. This is especially true for those with disabilities, those who are depressed or those with terminal illnesses. Treatment, care and pain management must be provided.

The fact remains that pain management does not stop all suffering. Palliative care does not ease all suffering. Despite the best medical treatment and care, some people still have an agonizing death. In those exceptional circumstances, I believe that allowing people the choice to end their own lives should be possible.

It is also true that protocols are now in place to allow this option for many people. Some call it passive or indirect euthanasia, describing the situation where doctors prescribe pain medication that places people in a coma and hastens their death. This is widely practised today in Canada but practised quietly, described by some as underground. It is often not directly acknowledged, which means it is available to some and not to others. The problem of legality also means that it is practised without real oversight. This is unacceptable.

Equally unacceptable to some people at the end of their lives is the practice of being sedated into unconsciousness and then denied food and fluids. Instead, they would prefer a clear personal choice for a dignified death. Like any piece of legislation, the bill before us today may not be perfect, but it is an important issue to debate and an important proposal to study. It is high time that it was on the legislative agenda of Parliament.

Sue Rodriguez, who in the early 1990s was living with ALS, famously asked the question, whose body is it, when she petitioned the Supreme Court for a physician-assisted suicide. She was ultimately denied in a close five-to-four decision. However, in February 1994, she did die at a time of her own choosing with the help of a physician. A police investigation resulted, but charges were never laid.

I remember that time very acutely because at the time I worked for the former MP for Burnaby—Douglas, Svend Robinson. Svend, everyone will recall, worked for years with Sue Rodriguez on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and was with her when she died. In my opinion, many acts of love and bravery were performed the day Sue died, by Sue, by Svend and by the anonymous doctor who assisted her. I was never prouder of Svend than when, at a press conference following Sue's death, he was asked if the highest duty of an MP should not be upholding the law and he responded that the highest duty of a member of Parliament is love.

I answered hundreds of phone calls in Svend's office after Sue's deaths, hundreds of moving, sometimes desperate, sometimes angry calls, but one in particular from a family investigated by the police for taking seriously a terminally ill loved one's questions about assisted suicide and euthanasia will stay with me forever. Just for discussing these issues in their family member's hospital room, they were reported to the police, who then visited them at their home. For some people the conversation is possible and results in the assistance they seek. For others, the conversation is not possible or results in other unacceptable consequences.

Palliative care and pain management are indeed issues related to this topic. We need to do more to ensure excellent palliative care is available to all. We need to ensure there is research and training in pain management. We know that when patients can be assured about those issues, most are relieved to know they will not suffer unduly. For many, that is all the insurance they need.

However, not all who have terminal diseases are guaranteed that they will not suffer terribly at the end of their lives and some of those people request assistance in dying.

Many opponents of dying with dignity note that the end of a life can be a time of reconciliation, when a strong sense of inner peace can be experienced, and there is no doubt about that, but it is also true that this is not always possible for every dying person. For some, there is no peace or reconciliation possible when they are subjected to terrible agony without the possibility of relief. In those cases, death may offer the only possibility of peace and reconciliation.

I believe it is possible to craft a law that works and provides appropriate safeguards. This has happened in other jurisdictions, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon and Washington.

Many people bring a theological perspective to this issue. Theologian Daniel Maguire has written extensively on the issue and he has said, “If you start out with the physicalist presumption, that only one's organic system can determine death in a way that is natural to humans, the discussion is stopped in its tracks. If however, you grant that it is natural for humans to deliberate about alternative possibilities and to pursue that course which commends itself to their reason, then death by choice can be discussed. It could in fact be seen as quite natural to humans whose distinctive dignity is their capacity for choice”.

He goes on to ask the question, “Why should disease, not the patient, have all the say?”

The legal perspective for allowing the right to die is also important to note. Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory's dissenting opinion in the 1993 Sue Rodriguez case should be remembered in this debate. He said:

The life of an individual must include dying. Dying is the final act in the drama of life. If, as I believe, dying is an integral part of living, then as a part of life it is entitled to the constitutional protection provided by s. 7. It follows that the right to die with dignity should be as well protected as any other aspect of the right to life. State prohibitions that would force a dreadful, painful death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill patient are an affront to human dignity.

The bill before us is not about making the decision for others. It is about ensuring people who are dying have the ability to make choices about their own life and can exercise those choices with informed consent.

This bill talks about adult decision-makers who are lucid, those who are in physical or mental pain that cannot be relieved or those suffering from a terminal illness, those who have made the request twice, 10 days apart, freely and with full information from their doctor.

The bill provides that the medical diagnosis must be reviewed by an impartial medical practitioner with no personal interest in the death of the person. The bill gives the power to the patient to revoke the request at any time.

These are the reasons I am glad Parliament is finally debating this issue. I will be voting for this bill, and I hope it will proceed to committee where it can be studied in detail, where witnesses can be heard on its provisions and where improvements can be made as appropriate.

[Points of Order, April 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will complete my point of order regarding my attempt to allow two ministers to correct the public record concerning the recent assertions that the government had referred recent allegations concerning the former Minister for Status of Women to the Ethics Commissioner. This is in light of the Ethics Commissioner's statement this morning on CBC radio that she had not received an official request from the Prime Minister to relate anything relating to the former minister.

I was giving some examples of how the Minister of Transport had responded to questions in the House on Monday on this issue. In response to another question, he then said:

Mr. Speaker, it was for the very reasons that the member described that the Prime Minister, when he received these allegations, allegations that are unproven to him or anyone else, referred these allegations to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to the Ethics Commissioner. Those are the independent agencies that are charged with making this type of determination.

Later, in another response to a question, he then said:

Mr. Speaker, when the allegations were brought to the Prime Minister's attention, he moved expeditiously and quickly. He immediately referred them to the two relevant independent authorities, the RCMP and the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. Those authorities will be the ones who will come to conclusions with respect to these matters.

As well, in response to another question, and I am reading from the translation, the Minister of Natural Resources said:

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, we learned of allegations made by a third party. Those allegations were referred to the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner. The RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner will draw their own conclusions.

Furthermore, later on in question period, the Minister of Natural Resources, in response to another question, said:

When we learned of the allegations we immediately referred the matter to the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner. They will draw their own conclusions.

I thought it was only fair to allow these ministers an opportunity to correct the record concerning this matter before we continue this discussion. This way, there will be no question of them having misled the House.

[Points of Order, April 15th, 2010]

The problem is that this exchange does not seem to agree with the statements of the ministers on this matter. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said the following during question period on Monday:

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister reported to Canadians this past Friday, allegations came forth from a third party. Those allegations were forwarded to officials at the RCMP and with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner in Ottawa. The RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner will come to their own conclusions, as is proper on the issue.

In response to another question he then said:

When the allegations of the third party arose, our government acted both quickly and appropriately and forwarded them on to both the RCMP and to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.

In response to another question, he then said:

Mr. Speaker, it was for the very reasons that the member described that the Prime Minister, when he received these allegations, allegations that are unproven to him or anyone else, referred these allegations to the Royal--

[Points of Order, April 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order in an attempt to allow two ministers to correct the public record concerning their recent assertions that the government had referred recent allegations concerning the former minister of state for the status of women to the Ethics Commissioner.

I will start by referring to a Library of Parliament transcript from this morning's CBC radio program, The Current, in which the following exchange between the Ethics Commissioner and host Anna Maria Tremonti took place:

MARY DAWSON: Yes, and I should just clarify that a little bit. I have not had an official request from the Prime Minister to investigate anything relating to [the member for Simcoe--Grey].

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Who has requested, then, if he hasn't?

MARY DAWSON: I haven't had any request.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: From anyone?

MARY DAWSON: No.

I will send you a copy of this transcript, Madam Speaker, and would happily table it in the House if I received consent. Is there consent to table the document, Madam Speaker?