Craig Scott

[Electoral Boundaries, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister defended a dishonourable scheme to put pressure on the non-partisan boundary commission in Saskatchewan, and he defended it with an enthusiasm that should cause all Canadians deep concern. The House leader then claimed the government's support for these tactics is equivalent to two Newfoundland MPs legitimately appearing before a House committee to request a boundary adjustment.

Does the government stand by the House leader's effort to change the channel with such manifestly incorrect and false comparisons?

[Electoral Boundaries, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last week the—

[Electoral Boundaries, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want us to believe that these calls were routine, but they were not. It was a push poll from a front company in an effort to manipulate and deceive. Conservatives knew that this was wrong, and that is why they denied involvement for five days, until they were caught and they had to confess. That is why they did these calls anonymously.

Will the government now stand up for the integrity of the commission and urge the Conservative Party to end its deceptive practices?

[Electoral Boundaries, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the fraudulent calls in Saskatchewan.

There is a process to voice objections and that process must be respected. It is unacceptable to attack an independent commission by making robocalls.

In response to my question yesterday, the Prime Minister defended the fraudulent calls. In the House, he is the leader of the government, not the leader of his party.

Will the government ensure that the Conservatives respect the process?

[Electoral Boundaries, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, no Canadian buys that excuse, nor do they buy that there was an internal communication problem to explain the political interference caused by the Conservatives' robocalls.

The Conservatives have admitted that they were behind this most recent manipulation, at a time when a parliamentary committee is examining the commission's report.

The parliamentary committee must examine the report objectively and in a non-partisan manner before responding to the commission.

Why does the Conservative government want to undermine the committee's work?

[Electoral Boundaries, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act establishes independent commissions in each province, each headed by a judge. These commissions serve in good faith and expect non-interference from political parties, and especially from the government.

No party with a basic sense of ethics would contemplate attempting to pressure a boundary commission to reverse its proposals by conducting a robo-con propaganda campaign against it.

Why is the Conservative government now interfering with the Saskatchewan boundary commission?

[Democratic Reform, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Senate reform, the last time the Conservatives brought Bill C-7 for debate was a year ago. Never mind that they have let essentially the same bill languish for seven years.

I would remind them also that it is they who control the calendar, not us. But if they cannot handle the responsibility of government, we would be very happy to take over.

Why did it take seven years for the government to finally check with the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of its legislation?

[Criminal Code, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague across the aisle for bringing forward this bill. It strikes me as a very reasonable piece of legislation.

The member touched on this in his speech and I wonder whether he might expand on how he views this offence in terms of beefing up the aggravating circumstances, as he is suggesting, and the abuse of society's institutions. There is obviously the victim side of this issue, specifically the incident he talked about, but as another aggravating factor, there is the particular issue of how this diminishes trust in our institutions. I would like to hear more on that.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to Sri Lankan nationals being sent back to Sri Lanka by Canada: (a) in assessing the risk of torture or other abuses that could be faced by a person sent by Canada to Sri Lanka, what relevance is given to the following factors: (i) the person being a young Tamil male from the north or northeast of Sri Lanka, (ii) the person being returned from a country or city viewed by the Sri Lankan government as formerly or currently a hub of pro-Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) activity, (iii) the person having voiced criticism or engaged in peaceful protest against the government of Sri Lanka while outside Sri Lanka; (b) does the government consider Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil or Tamil-speaking origin to be vulnerable as a group to mistreatment in Sri Lanka and, if not, does the government consider any of the following sub-groups to be at risk: (i) young males, (ii) critics of the Sri Lanka regime, (iii) journalists, (iv) failed refugee claimants, (v) successful refugee claimants being refouled, (vi) known members of the LTTE, (vii) persons suspected or likely to be suspected by the Sri Lankan government as being members of the LTTE, (viii) persons known to hold pro-LTTE views; (c) in the case of sending a Sri Lankan national to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, do Canadian officials take any of the following precautions: i) escort returnees on the plane back to Sri Lanka, ii) meet returnees upon their arrival at the airport in Sri Lanka, iii) observe treatment of the returnee at the airport (and if so, for how long), iv) monitor the whereabouts and treatment of a returnee after the airport arrival; (d) does the taking of precautions relate in any way to whether or not a person has been sent back to Sri Lanka only after Canada has received diplomatic assurances; (e) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons sent from Canada to Sri Lanka and, if so, how many and on what dates; (f) has the government, whether in Canada or at the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka, received reports or expressions of concern from reliable sources about the treatment of persons who voluntarily returned from Canada to Sri Lanka after having arrived in Canada to make a refugee claim and, if so, how many and on what dates; (g) when concerns are expressed from reliable sources in cases (e) and (f), such as by a Canadian lawyer, about the treatment of a returnee after their return to Sri Lanka and the location of the returnee, such as in Criminal Investigation Division (CID) custody or in hospital, (i) what measures does the Embassy of Canada in Sri Lanka take, (ii) if any measures are taken, do they include visiting the returnee and interviewing them about any abuse or persecution they may have suffered, (iii) if interviewing does take place, does it take place in the presence of Sri Lanka state officials and, if so, whom, (iv) if the interview raises concerns or suspicions about abuse of persecution, what is then done; (h) are Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials permitted to (i) participate in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observe such interrogations, (iii) supply information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations, and if so, which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic) with which Sri Lanka state actors, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (i) from 2003 to present, have Canadian law enforcement, border services, intelligence, military, or diplomatic officials ever (i) participated in interrogations by any state actors in Sri Lanka, (ii) observed such interrogations, (iii) supplied information for, or questions to be asked at, such interrogations and, if so, by which category of officials (law enforcement, intelligence, military, or diplomatic), to which Sri Lankan state actor, under what circumstances and subject to what conditions may this have taken place; (j) how many Sri Lankan nationals have been sent back to Sri Lanka, whether by extradition, deportation, removal or any other method involving the government, since the beginning of 2007, in each of (i) 2007, (ii) 2008, (iii) 2009, (iv) 2010, (v) 2011, (vi) 2012 to date; (k) within the above numbers, which are due to removal orders; (l) how many Sri Lankan nationals are currently subject to removal orders that have not yet been executed; (m) how many of those sent to Sri Lanka since the start of 2007 have been sent only after diplomatic assurances were obtained; (n) are such assurances legally binding and, if not, on what basis did the government consider them reliable; (o) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on the problem with relying on assurances from a government of a state where torture is practised, does the government consider that diplomatic assurances from Sri Lanka can be relied upon at the present time; (p) in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s comments in Suresh on monitoring in relation to diplomatic assurances, does the government consider that monitoring mechanisms must be part of diplomatic assurances and, if so, what are the nature of the mechanisms in any diplomatic assurances with respect to returnees to Sri Lanka; (q) are there written policies, sets of guidelines or similar documents containing rules, principles or considerations for determining when and how assurances will be sought, and for determining if assurances are adequate; and (r) with respect to Vote 30b of the Supplementary Estimates considered at the Justice and Human Rights Standing Committee on November 29, 2012, and its reference to “assurances against torture in exceptional removal cases”, (i) what is the definition of an “exceptional removal case”, (ii) how many such cases have there been between 2007 and present, (iii) how many have been removals to Sri Lanka?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to details of Bill S-7, the Combatting Terrorism Act: (a) when will cooperation protocols or memoranda of understanding relating to enforcement of the new ‘leaving the country’ Criminal Code offences be ready; (b) what agencies will be part of the protocols or memoranda, and what subject matter will be covered; (c) will the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) have any vetting or review functions with respect to the protocols or memoranda, and will any other review mechanism for the operation of the protocols or memoranda be put in place; (d) is either (i) an exit control system being planned, or (ii) an information system to allow the government to be aware of when people are leaving being planned; (e) is it the intention of the government to reform the passenger information system for departing airplanes so that passenger lists are available to Canadian agencies before planes leave the ground, in order to permit the arrest of persons leaving contrary to the ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7; (f) is a reform of the no-fly list being envisaged as one method of enforcing the ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7; (g) how is it envisaged that investigative hearings will be used to discern an individual’s intention of leaving the country for purposes of terrorism, and is it envisaged that neighbours, family members, friends and acquaintances in the community of a suspect will be the subjects of investigative hearings for this purpose; (h) how would hearings that deal with recognizance with conditions produce evidence of intention to leave the country; (i) can a person suspected of wanting to leave, or wanting to attempt to leave, the country in violation of the new ‘leaving the country’ offences in Bill S-7 be preventively detained and subjected to recognizance with conditions that include a prohibition on leaving Canada and measures such as confiscating the suspect’s passport for up to 12 months; (j) is the above interaction of the leaving the country offences and recognizance with conditions a planned use of the recognizance with conditions provisions; and (k) can a person be subjected to preventive detention or recognisance with conditions in an effort to prevent terrorist activity that another person--other than the person subjected to the conditions--may engage in, even if there is no concern that the person subjected to the conditions will herself or himself commit terrorist activity?