Bill Siksay

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, one issue not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, in an area where serious recalibration is necessary, is with regard to the use of security certificates in Canada. We are seeing security certificates overturned and quashed by the courts.

The latest was on December 14 when Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court of Canada quashed the security certificate against Hassan Almrei. Mr. Almrei had been detained on an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act security certificate since 2001 as an alleged terrorism suspect.

The most recent certificate was issued in February 2008 signed by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the then Minister of Public Safety, who is now the Minister of International Trade. That is eight years in jail, never having been charged, tried or convicted of a crime. It is still hard to believe that is possible in Canada.

Justice Mosley, in quashing the certificate against Mr. Almrei, noted that he “was not a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe has engaged in terrorism”. That is a very serious conclusion.

However, there is another aspect of Justice Mosley's decision that is also very serious. As part of the judgment, he also ruled that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the former Minister of Public Safety were in violation of their duty of candour to the court, noting that they had failed to provide full information on the case to the court and that they did not fully review all the information available about the case when they signed the security certificate against Mr. Almrei in 2008.

This is extremely troubling given the extraordinary circumstances of security certificates which suspend the usual process of justice in Canada. The security certificate allows for the indefinite detention without charge, trial or conviction; it withholds evidence from the accused and his or her lawyer; and it prevents even the special advocates who do get to review all the evidence from communicating with the accused about specific details or allegations. It works in camera, in secret.

Given the extraordinary circumstances under which a security certificate is used, Judge Mosley points out that the government, CSIS and the ministers signing the security certificate must present all the evidence at their disposal, even that which is unfavourable to their case. He notes that in this case the certificate was:

--assembled with information that could only be construed as unfavourable to Almrei without any serious attempt to include information to the contrary, or to update their assessment.

The judge found the ministers in breach of their duty of candour to the court. It should be pointed out that he also, similarly, found CSIS to have breached its duties.

New Democrats have long held that the security certificate process should be repealed. We feared exactly what has taken place, that the process would not be used appropriately and that due diligence would not be done, that there would be an abuse of these extraordinary powers. The government must respond to this judgment and this situation. I happen to believe personally that this matter is so serious that both ministers should be removed from cabinet and the use of security certificates should be suspended given the failures of these ministers.

Recalibration was the word used by the government to describe the need for prorogation. Serious recalibration and serious accountability measures are needed especially in light of this abuse of the security certificate process.

The Speech from the Throne provided no recalibration. It was just more of the same. There is no coherent vision of how to protect or create jobs for Canadians. The government could have made choices to ensure all Canadians benefit in an economic recovery, but it chose not to.

There is no movement to stop the corporate tax giveaway that diverts billions from lifting seniors out of poverty or helping women and children. There will be $6 billion more given to profitable corporations, big banks and big oil companies, which is especially ironic when the banks are announcing record profits.

There is no tangible commitment on climate change. The government called climate change one of the most important challenges but offered no plan to address it, other than deregulating and speeding up tar sands development and ending the role of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

There is no new commitment to public transit. The government could have chosen to dedicate 1¢ per litre of the gas tax to public transit. There is no national housing program and no new affordable housing or homelessness commitment. There was silence on health care. There was nothing significant on child care. There was nothing on pay equity and there was no commitment to fair trade. Instead, the outrageous free trade deal with Colombia is the first thing that is back on the agenda.

Sadly, this is yet another disappointing agenda from the government.

[Criminal Code, March 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for introducing this important piece of legislation, which I will be proud to support when the time comes for the vote on it.

I want to ask her about the so-called slippery slope. There are some people who believe that this kind of legislation that provides an option of death with dignity leads to a deterioration of palliative care and end of life care. However, Arthur Schafer, the director of the Centre for Professional & Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba, has studied this and in fact shown that palliative and end of life care get better when this kind of legislation is introduced--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, we cannot begin to participate in this debate without talking about how the last session ended.

It is very apparent that there was no excuse for the prorogation move that the Prime Minister undertook back in December. The government clearly wanted to change the channel. It wanted to divert attention from the political problems that it was experiencing at the time, like the hugely unpopular HST and the Afghan prisoner transfer and torture scandal.

Unfortunately for the government, Canadians cottoned on to its plan and hundreds of thousands expressed their concerns online and thousands protested across the country. So changing the channel did not work.

The Conservatives talked about wanting to recalibrate where the government was headed but, unfortunately, this Speech from the Throne and the subsequent budget have included scant recalibration. There is really nothing much new in terms of what was set forward. The irony is that the Conservatives have done more perhaps than all of the opposition parties combined to block progress on their own agenda. They have done it more effectively by prorogation and early elections than any tactic opposition parties could undertake.

Usually in any speech from the throne there is something we can agree with. No speech from the throne is ever a complete bust, and the one issue in this Speech from the Throne that I was glad was mentioned was where the government stated that it was:

Recognizing the danger posed by the proliferation of nuclear materials and technology to global peace and security, our Government will support the initiatives of President Obama and participate fully in the landmark Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April.

As the chair of the Canadian section of parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, I was glad that there was some reference in the Speech from the Throne on the issue of nuclear disarmament and proliferation. It was high time there was some public statement from the government on the issue of nuclear disarmament. That was long overdue. Now we have this one sentence in the Speech from the Throne. I suppose one sentence is a start but the government must go much further immediately on that.

Canada must definitively and actively call for a nuclear weapons-free world and there are a number of ways Canada can do this. Canada could do this by supporting the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's detailed five-point plan on nuclear disarmament and disarmament issues. Canada should endorse that plan and begin to work in cooperation with the Secretary-General to promoting that plan. President Obama, as the government mentioned, has put the issue of nuclear disarmament high on his priority list in his chairing of the special security council meeting with an indication of just where he sees this important issue. We are all talking about the possibility of the Obama moment when it comes to the whole issue of nuclear disarmament.

Recently the foreign ministers of Australia and Japan made a joint statement on nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. There are other countries that are taking high level, high profile initiatives around this issue. Here in Canada, almost 800 Order of Canada recipients have been outspoken in their call for Canada to be active in this task.

The Interparliamentary Union made a statement on nuclear disarmament at its last meeting in Addis Ababa. Also, over 100 world leaders are supporting the global zero movement calling for zero nuclear weapons. There are a number of initiatives that, if the government were truly serious about this, it could get on board with. We need a strong public statement from our Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the issue of nuclear disarmament.

We need a broader commitment, including support for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention. Such a proposal has been put forward by Costa Rica and Malaysia. The government needs to ensure that the convention is referenced in the final document of the upcoming non-proliferation treaty review conference.

There are specific actions that the government should be announcing and publicly supporting to ensure that nuclear disarmament is truly on the agenda of Canada.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to table a petition signed by over 130 folks from the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas, many of whom are members of the Korean-Canadian community.

These petitioners are very concerned about the difficulty that North Korean refugees, who escaped from North Korea to the People's Republic of China, have in finding safe passage to South Korea.

The petitioners urge Canada to strongly support the international effort to seek a change in the policies of the People's Republic of China to make sure these refugees find safe haven in South Korea.

They also call on Parliament to support a motion to this effect, tabled by my colleague the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for bringing this issue to the House of Commons today. It is a matter of urgency, given the fact that these workers have been off the job for so long and there has been so little movement in resolving this labour dispute.

I am also very glad to hear that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage took the time to look at this issue and bring this report to the whole House. I think their intervention is necessary to get the government moving. These are two important national institutions. I think it shames us all that this dispute continues when these people provide such an important service to all Canadians.

I wonder if the member for Timmins—James Bay might tell us a little more of the discussion that happened at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and why the committee felt it was important to bring this report to the House.

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for being so clear about the effect on ordinary families.

One of the other effects this legislation will have in British Columbia is that it will end the exemptions that were improving environmental behaviours. Things like bicycles are now going to be taxed for the first time in 30 years in British Columbia, and things like insulation and energy star windows and doors and refrigerators.

How can we stand by when that kind of policy change is going to be possible because of this legislation?

[Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act, December 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague must be very proud of the government of his home province, the NDP government in Manitoba, for the stand that it has taken on this whole issue of tax harmonization. He knows what was in the throne speech on November 30 in Manitoba where the Manitoba government said in that speech from the throne:

Manitoba is rejecting an invitation from the federal government to introduce a Harmonized Sales Tax. As proposed, the HST would impose more than 400 million dollars in new sales tax costs on Manitoba families at a time of economic uncertainty.

Clearly, there is an NDP government that is willing to stand up to this nonsense. I wonder if he could comment on that.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, this is a planned job by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. In British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals are right on board with this plan. Both of them are moving forward with this much-hated HST.

The irony is this is undoing a lot of the good work, certainly in the area of the environment. For 30 years, British Columbia has had a provincial sales tax exemption on bicycles, bicycle products and bicycle servicing. We know how important it is these days when the concern about the environment is so significant. We know it is very important when bicycles are among the fastest-growing means of transit in some of our cities. Certainly that is true in Vancouver and Victoria. Yet, the HST will apply now to bicycles.

There are all kinds of implications about this HST and the environment that we should be discussing. We are enabling this to go forward. We want British Columbians to have the opportunity to raise these kinds of concerns. The whole concern about ending the HST on energy star appliances is another issue of applying this new tax to those—

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, another great irony of this whole debate today is the fact that not only are the Conservatives bringing in this legislation against the will of the people of British Columbia, not only are they doing it in a way that belies some of their commitments of the past, some of their very strong and, we thought, deeply held convictions for more democracy in this place and better representation for people of western Canada, but they are doing it at the behest of a provincial government, led by Gordon Campbell, that lied to British Columbians in the last election. It bald-faced lied, saying it had no interest in a harmonized sales tax before the election. What did it do afterwards? It immediately moved to bring in that same HST, that same sales tax.

That kind of behaviour would have been good reason for the Conservatives of old, for the Reformers of old to disassociate themselves from the provincial government. However, no, the Conservative government takes up the challenge, leads the charge, enables that kind of government to bring forward this type of legislation.

That is a significant change in the way the government and the Conservative representatives from British Columbia have chosen to lead the way and to handle their representation of the people of British Columbia.

[Disposition of an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, December 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon on Motion No. 8, which is one of the most heinous kinds of motions that a government can bring before a Parliament.

There is no doubt that these kinds of time allocation motions do serve to limit the democratic process and limit the ability of members of Parliament and Canadians to participate in debate on legislation that comes before the House of Commons. When that is combined with the closure motion that the government brought forward this morning, it makes it all the worse.

It is unbelievable that the Conservative House leader, the member for Prince George—Peace River, stood in this place this morning and moved closure on debate on this time allocation motion. He has forced this debate to come to a close today with a vote this evening. His closure motion limits the ability of members of Parliament to challenge the government's process on the HST legislation. It is particularly galling that a member from British Columbia would do that when he knows how unpopular this measure is with British Columbians.

I have a feeling that the people of Prince George—Peace River will have a thing or two to say to the House leader of the Conservative Party for bringing forward this kind of limitation on the ability of Parliament to discuss and debate an important piece of legislation, a tax measure no less.

I am sure that had this been several years ago when that member was in opposition, his head would be spinning at the thought of limiting debate on a tax measure before the House of Commons. It is absolutely incredible. People in Prince George will not be happy with the undertaking that the member moved today.

Limiting time on debate may be justified in certain situations. It may be justified if the government's ability to move its agenda forward is completely blocked or bogged down. In that situation an argument might be made for this kind of time allocation motion.

I say might because I do not believe that is generally the case. It is absolutely not the case in this circumstance. There is no evidence whatsoever that the government has been at all impeded in proceeding on this measure. I would like to believe that we could stop this measure, but the time allocation motion had not been brought before the House before the government moved to limit the time spent debating this measure. There is absolutely no evidence that the government's ability to move this through, to advance its program, was impeded.

Advancing the government's program is how the House of Commons manual on procedures refers to the kind of circumstance where time allocation might be engaged, but in this case there is no evidence whatsoever that is the case.

An argument might be made if there were an emergency that required this kind of time allocation, that required the government to advance everything about the legislative process to get something through the House.

What is the emergency in this case? There is no emergency surrounding the HST. There certainly is no emergency around it in British Columbia. The provincial legislature is not even planning on debating this issue until March or April of next year. The Conservatives, even if they get the go-ahead from the provinces and the House of Commons, are not planning on implementing this legislation until July 1 of next year. There is absolutely no emergency related to this bill.

There is absolutely no excuse for advancing the agenda using time allocation and closure, two of the most draconian measures available to a government, when there is no emergency.

Granted, the Conservatives have a very serious political problem on their hands. I am sure they would love the HST issue to be behind them so that they could enjoy their Christmas vacation, so that they could go on their holidays in the new year, so that they could come back to this place at the end of January knowing that it was not going to be around to bother them. We in the NDP and the people of British Columbia are going to make sure that it is still around to bother them.

There is no excuse for the government having moved on this just because it has a political problem and its provincial government friends in British Columbia have a political problem on their hands. Eighty-three percent of British Columbians oppose the HST. We saw that in polls today done by Ipsos Reid and Canwest and Global National. That is an incredibly high figure. The Conservatives have a huge political problem.

I have noted that the Conservative Party members from British Columbia have been very slow to jump to their feet to defend these measures today in the House of Commons. They have been very slow to say anything in this debate whatsoever about what is going on with this and why. Where is the emergency that means we have to proceed on all of this so quickly? It is a very serious issue.

A tax measure deserves a full debate in the House of Commons. Perhaps a tax measure especially deserves a full debate. In the development of our democracy, we have often seen the call of no taxation without representation. Surely, that is what the government has put to the House today with Motion No. 8. For some reason, we have to limit the debate so severely that it really amounts to taxation without representation.

We have made it impossible for the Standing Committee on Finance to hold hearings on this measure. We have made it impossible for them to travel to British Columbia to hear from people and organizations in British Columbia about the HST. They are ramming it through in four hours of committee work. Four hours of committee work is miraculous progress for almost any piece of legislation that would come before the House of Commons. It is certainly miraculous and unheard of in this situation, where we have a tax measure that is resoundingly unpopular with the people on whom it is being imposed.

We need to make sure that the House of Commons and its members are able to do due diligence. Motion No. 8, which we are debating today, does not allow for that kind of diligence to happen in the consideration of this new tax measure. I am glad that the member for Vancouver East moved and that I was able to second an amendment to Motion No. 8 that calls for hearings in British Columbia and Ontario and that calls for a reasonable timeframe for this legislation, which would allow British Columbians and the people of Ontario to have their voices heard about this legislation.

I hope that members will consider that amendment, although given that the Conservatives and their Liberal friends have moved to squelch debate on this issue, I doubt that the amendment has much of a chance in this place. I think it is particularly outrageous that British Columbians do not get a chance to have their voices heard.

There was a time when Conservatives claimed that they were the big defenders of the voices of western Canadians. They said that they came here to Ottawa to make sure the voices of the west would be heard. The west wanted in. Here we are in a case where the west is firmly opposed to something that the Conservatives are bringing forward and they are not even allowing those people to have their voices heard or to have their say on this legislation.

There will be no hearings in British Columbia. There will be no public consultations in British Columbia. The debate has been severely limited here in the House of Commons. None of that would have been acceptable to those people who came to this place saying that the west wanted in. The government has turned out to be just as distant and just as uncaring as those governments it railed against time and time again when it was in opposition. It is amazing how quickly it forgets its roots when it comes to this kind of issue and a taxation issue nonetheless.

I think it is very important that the government also take responsibility for its actions. We hear it stand time and time again, saying that this is a provincial issue and that it has nothing to do with it. If that is the case, why are we standing here having this debate today? Why is it having to bring in these draconian closure and time allocation measures? Why is there a piece of legislation called Bill C-62, amendments to the Excise Tax Act, on the agenda of the House of Commons if it has nothing to do with federal jurisdiction?

It does have something to do with federal jurisdiction. It requires the action of the House and it requires the action of that government to go forward. It should own up to the responsibility for the actions it is taking and own up to the consequences of those actions. British Columbians are going to be paying more in taxation. Every British Columbian is going to be faced with a higher tax bill in the coming weeks and months.

There is no emergency. There is no problem with advancing the government's agenda. There is a severe problem with the idea of no taxation without representation. It is a very sad day when the Conservatives turn their back on their own constituents in British Columbia and their own history of being a populist party that supports letting the western voices be heard here in the House of Commons.