Bob Rae

[Health, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the minister had an opportunity to tell the House on Friday because he must have been aware that there were significant reduction in supplies to the provinces. He chose not to share that information with the House of Commons on Friday when he was fully aware of it. Those are the facts.

On the weekend, the Minister of Health was blaming the provinces. She was blaming the drug company. She was taking no responsibility herself for what took place. Why will the government not take responsibility for the files and the issues that are clearly right in front of it? Why will it not take that responsibility?

[Health, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the same minister did not even say on Friday that there had been significant reductions in the supplies of vaccines across the country. He did not report that to the House.

In August, the health minister said that no matter what happened this fall, they were well prepared.

If they are well prepared, why is there clearly not a sufficient supply of vaccines, no coherent information and absolutely no clear leadership on this important issue for Canadians?

[Health, November 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the federal government has two clear responsibilities. The first is to ensure a steady and reliable supply of vaccines for H1N1. The second is to provide leadership and information on a coherent pandemic response.

I would like to ask the government a very simple question: How could it have failed so miserably to execute these two critical responsibilities?

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, after 30-plus years in politics, I have never heard a hypothetical question answered successfully, so I do not intend to start now. I would say to the hon. member that I have much more confidence, perhaps, than he does in his question with respect to our ability to persuade the government, perhaps even through something as simple as the force of numbers, that amendments are necessary.

It is my sense, too, from discussions with a number of groups that have been very actively involved, the survivors of 9/11 and the families of the victims of Air India, that there is a powerful sense that we want to ensure we get our legislation right in Canada.

I do want to say to members that I appreciate the leadership the government has shown in at least bringing the legislation forward. I am sorry, however, that it was not done in the way it was proposed by my colleague from Mount Royal, who has been a real leader on this issue, not only in this chamber but, indeed, internationally. However, I do think we can pass legislation that will set a standard, not only for Canada but for the rest of the world.

As we learn to take terrorism far more seriously as a country, we also need to learn to understand that the real impact of these acts of violence is felt by real people whose rights should not be eliminated for political reasons.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly in the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

The subject matter of the bill before us is important. It reflects important developments in our political and legal life that deserve to be debated and better understood and certainly discussed widely in committee after second reading. I look forward to that discussion.

I want to echo the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre with respect to the importance of having a real discussion about some of the issues that have been raised with respect to the legislation.

I appreciated particularly the comments made by the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. She made some important statements about the significance within Canada of our recognizing the impact that terrorism has had in Canada.

I had the privilege of being asked by the former government to review the circumstances underlying the bombing of Flight 182 and recommended a further inquiry. I had a chance to spend some time in her community as well as in a number of other constituencies across the country, meeting with members of the communities that had been touched and so devastated by that act of terrorist bombing.

As I said in my report, which called for a further inquiry and called for a recognition of June 23 as a date on which Canada should recognize the loss of life not only in the Air India bombing but also resulting from acts of terrorism around the world that have touched Canadians, in many respects we have failed as a country to take account of what took place on that tragic day. We have also failed to come to terms with the impact that this kind of terrorism has had on us and has had on a number of other countries around the world.

Since 1985 we have seen how tragic these issues are and how deeply they are shared by communities, peoples, cities and countries. It is precisely because governments have not always been able, for a variety of reasons, to respond effectively to the impact that these terrible bombings, these terrible attacks, these terrible events have on people that I was a very strong supporter of the Senate private member's bill that dealt with the question that is now before the House.

Because I was not a member of the House at the time it was being considered, I had a chance to appear before the Senate committee and give my support to the principles in the Senate bill.

The bill that is before us represents a step forward in the sense that it recognizes that there is a right that pertains to an individual to pursue a civil claim against a group and against a government that is sustaining that group which has in fact caused the loss of life or caused the impact or the damages of a terrorist act.

Terrorist acts are of course criminal. We know that. We also know that states and their ministries are very jealous of their own particular jurisdiction. I think it is fair to say that up until the present time, with very few exceptions, the issue of terrorism has been seen as an exclusively political issue that can be managed and dealt with only by states, by armies and by lawyers working for national governments and that citizens themselves, whose rights have been impacted and affected and whose lives in many cases have been devastated by the impact of a terrorist act, are effectively marginalized.

The bill represents a partial step forward. On one hand it recognizes that citizens have rights, but on the other hand, and my colleague from Mount Royal has already discussed this but I just wanted to add my thoughts to it, it creates this notion of a political list which would be crafted essentially by departments of foreign affairs and departments of justice. Effectively it takes away with one hand what it gives with the other.

I am very familiar with the kind of legal and political advice governments would be getting with respect to this, and I think we all understand why the government has decided to adopt the civil remedy portions of the private member's bill but to insist on the notion of a political list. I think that decision is mistaken, because its net effect will be to not give in substance the rights that people are being given in theory.

Second, regarding the comments made by several members on the other side about why this provision is in the bill, in my view it will have the opposite effect. Precisely because it will politicize the whole process, it will make the achievement of justice that much more difficult.

I want to turn my attention briefly to the comments made by other members with respect to the question of torture. I know my colleague from Mount Royal is going to be producing a private member's bill, which he has discussed with all of us on our side, aimed at applying clearer civil remedies with respect to torture and removing state immunity in that regard, something we see as an entirely positive and healthy extension of a rule of law and the rights of citizens. It has traditionally been in our national interest as a country to extend the rule of law as far as we can and to make sure that the notion of human rights is made real not only in international courts but in our own courts.

I hope the committee discussion will give us a chance to discuss whether there is a way of amending this legislation to meet those criteria or whether we should simply do so in a parallel process with a separate piece of legislation. I am certainly very open to a discussion with colleagues from all sides of the House with respect to this question. I cannot imagine a member of the House not believing that someone who is a victim of torture should have civil rights and civil remedies or that any government should be able to hide behind state immunity when it comes to the use of torture any more than they should be able to hide behind state immunity with respect to the sponsorship of terrorist organizations.

We are in agreement with the principles of the bill introduced by the government, but we still see a problem in the politicization of the proposed list of states that could be sued. We hope to be able to convince the government in a consensual manner of the importance of finding other solutions in order to reach a conclusion. I hope that will be the case.

As far as torture is concerned, we share the point of view that the concept of immunity for a state should not be used to give immunity to states that use torture against their citizens or Canadian citizens. We want to live in a world that respects human rights and we want human rights to be real.

I think that is how we will reach the best conclusions.

[Health, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would rather take the words of the manager of a health clinic in Vancouver over the words of the minister.

This is what Yvonne McLeod said:

Everyone is telling them to get vaccinated but we don’t have the shots and we can’t even direct people because there is nowhere to go....

I could easily give out 200 a day but I don’t have the staff or the vaccine.

That is the reality on the ground that Canadians are having to confront. That will be their experience this weekend and that will be their experience next week.

How does the minister explain this direct contradiction between what he is saying and what people are actually experiencing?

[Health, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a credibility problem for a very simple reason: what it is saying is unfortunately completely at odds with the experience of the people in unacceptable waiting lines, people who do not have access to the vaccine and pregnant women in clinics inundated with people. That is the everyday reality.

I would like to ask the minister this question again. How does he explain the contradiction between the benign statements he continues to make in the House of Commons and—

[Health, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is such a profound contradiction between the experience of Canadians on the ground with respect to H1N1, where there are long waiting lines, where there are clinics that are being closed, where there are doctors who are having to turn people away because they simply do not have the vaccine, and the very benign statements that are being made by the government about how everything is under control and everything is going well.

How does the minister responsible explain this clear contradiction between the everyday experience of Canadians and the kind of unreality that is being expressed in the House of Commons by the ministers present?

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member how proud all of us are in the Liberal caucus and I am sure in the whole House to have somebody of his calibre focusing his great attention on this question.

I would like to ask the member to comment on this thought. The minister referred to the political difficulties of listing certain countries with respect to our foreign relations. Would the member not agree with me that by turning this into a political act by the government putting countries on the list, it constantly politicizes an issue and makes an issue more difficult when in fact the purpose of the legislation is to grant a civil right to victims that would be there in a sense regardless of politics? It is not because one country or another is on a list that there is a problem, it is because that victim can prove in court that in fact that country is responsible for an act of terrorism.

[Health, October 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there was a delay of several months in the decision to order the vaccine. Those facts are very clear. There was an entire gap of time in which things were not done which needed to be done. There was a race against time and we are now late in dealing with the outbreak of the virus.

I would like to ask the minister this question. Yesterday in the Saskatchewan legislature the health minister announced that there will be 40,000 fewer vaccines distributed next week than there were this week because of the decisions of the federal government. Those cuts are being faced by provinces across the board.

How does the minister justify the fact that we are late in the day in dealing with this crisis?