Don Davies

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating comment, coming from a member of the government.

I would, in turn, ask him a question. The government is talking about the freedom of Canadians to own guns but opposes the responsibility of even registering a gun. In that case, I guess there is no corresponding responsibility. A Canadian, according to the government, has the freedom to own and walk around with a gun, but there is no corresponding responsibility to do something even as minor as registering that weapon. In that case, it is a question of pure freedom. I would be interested in hearing my friend's comments to help me understand that.

Of course there are corresponding responsibilities, but core civil liberties are core civil liberties. The right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself is not conditional. It is either a right or it is not a right. The right not to be arrested when one has not done anything, when the state has no evidence that a person has done something or might do something, has no corresponding responsibility. Canadians are either free to walk our streets and not have their liberties restricted by the state in the absence of evidence or they are not.

I agree with Mr. Frankl's comments about responsibility and freedom, but we are not talking about those kinds of liberties. We are talking about core constitutional liberties, which I believe have no conditions attached. They are core, fundamental values and rights that every Canadian enjoys, and we have to support and protect those rights vigilantly.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada and speak loudly and clearly against this misinformed legislation.

The fundamental issue presented by Bill C-17 before the House today engages some very alarming and critical matters.

Fundamentally the bill engages these concepts, and that is due process in law cannot be respected by offending due process in law. Civil rights cannot be protected in our country by violating civil rights. Freedom in Canada cannot be supported by abridging the freedom of every Canadian in the country.

These comments cut to the heart of this matter and I will come back to these concepts later on in my speech.

Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code, was introduced twice in the House before. It contains provisions found in former Bill S-3, which was as amended by the Senate Special Committee on Anti-terrorism last year.

The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate the anti-terrorism provisions that expired under the sunset clause in February 2007. The bill essentially proposes two critical matters. First, it provides for the appearance of individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence and compels attendance before a judge for an investigative hearing. It contains also a provision that deals with the imprisonment of those people for up to 12 months without charge.

Investigative hearings whereby individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence, past or future, can be compelled to attend a hearing and answer questions. Under the legislation, no one attending a hearing can refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination. While information gathered at such hearings cannot be used directly in criminal proceedings against that individual, derivative evidence can and could be used against that individual in further criminal proceedings against that person.

Second, the bill provides for a form of preventative arrest whereby individuals may be arrested without evidence in order to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist act. In other words, the bill provides for detention based on what someone might do, not what he or she has done. The arrested individual must be brought before a judge within 24 hours or as soon as feasible after that.

In that case, a judge would determine whether that individual is to be released unconditionally or released under certain conditions, in other words, recognizance with conditions for up to 12 months without charge. If the conditions are refused, the individual may be imprisoned for up to 12 months without charge.

Bill C-17 contains a five year sunset clause, which requires a resolution of both the House and the Senate for it to be renewed.

The seriousness with which the bill attacks our civil liberties in our country is established by the fact that it has to contain a sunset clause to come back before the House. This shows that the government does not have the confidence to put these provisions into law for a permanent period of time, and that should be alarming to every member of the House.

Clause 1 C-17 would amend the Criminal Code and is similar to the original Anti-terrorism Act, section 83 of the Criminal Code, which forces individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence to appear before a judge for an investigative hearing. Again, the objective of this is to compel that person to speak under penalty of imprisonment. I want to deal with that matter first.

Every student in the country knows about the right to remain silent and the right not to give evidence that may be used to incriminate one in a future proceeding. Such a right is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society. Yet this legislation would violate that historic right that can be traced back centuries into British parliamentary democratic tradition.

I want to pause and say that civil liberties are something that every Canadian holds sacrosanct and civil liberties are something that ought to be protected vigilantly in all circumstances.

The erosion of civil liberties does not happen in profound or drastic fashion. History has proven that the erosion of civil liberties happens incrementally and that every society that has descended into dictatorship or authoritarianism has begun with a gradual erosion of civil liberties. People do not wake up one day and find that their Constitution is eviscerated or that their civil liberties are evaporated. What history has told us is that, little by little, governments intervene and they start taking away people's civil liberties. That is why, as members of Parliament in the House, as the representatives of the people and the guardians of civil liberties in our country, every member of the House has an obligation to oppose any legislation that would derogate from Canadian civil liberties, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any other constitutional right that we have.

I also want to talk about the right to appear at a hearing and the right to remain silent.

This summer the Conservative government moved to end the long form census because it felt that the state had no right to ask people incriminating questions such as how many bedrooms existed in the house. It has said repeatedly that Canadians have to be protected against a government that would ask them questions for the purposes of gathering research, questions that help determine social policy in our country. The government said it was offensive and was a violation of the rights of Canadians. Yet the first act the government has put forward in the House after the summer recess would force Canadians to come before a judge and compels them to answer questions, in violation of their historic constitutional right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves.

Am I the only Canadian who finds that to be the most hypocritical contradiction that probably has existed this year? What kind of government cannot see the contradiction between purporting to stand up for the rights of Canadians not to be asked offensive questions, but then hauling them before a judge and forcing them to answer questions, violating their constitutional rights in the bargain?

There are not constitutional rights engaged when Canadians are asked questions on a census. The government said that we could not ask Canadians questions in the long form census that might result in Canadians being imprisoned for refusing to answer. This legislation would imprison people for refusing to answer. I would like to hear a member from the government explain that contradiction to Canadians.

The legislation would also does something else that is extremely offensive and something that all parliamentarians ought to protect and oppose vigilantly, and that is the concept of preventive arrest. That is the concept of arresting people not based on what they have done, not based on evidence, but based on mere suspicion about what they might do.

Could such a power be exercised by a government? Canadians might ask if any government would exercise such a power irresponsibly. We have an example where it did exactly that recently.

This summer in Toronto, at the G20 hearings, authorities of the state arrested 1,100 Canadians for simply walking in the street and expressing their views. Why did it do that? It did that for preventive reasons. We know that because for 900 of those 1,100 Canadians, when they appeared in court several months later and the state was forced to actually back up those arrests, the state withdrew the charges. What happened this summer? Eleven hundred Canadians had their civil rights violated, their right to assemble publicly and peacefully and to express themselves under multiple sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government and the state took away those rights because of preventive reasons. It took away the rights of those Canadians to express peacefully to world leaders gathering in our country how they felt about issues affecting the world and the government and organs of the state violated the rights of Canadians in that regard.

We do not have to talk hypothetically or talk about fictional examples. I think every Canadian watched with disgust and horror when police rounded up Canadians, penning them in and holding them for days on end so their expressions would not be heard by world leaders. Then after the event was over, they were let out and the charges were dropped. That is what preventive arrest looks like, and the bill wants to enshrine in law a concept of preventive arrest.

I want to talk a bit about the Liberals, because the Liberals have a long history of talking about civil liberties and then acting against them. I have already mentioned that in World War II it was a Liberal government that rounded up Japanese Canadians and interned them based on nothing but their ancestry and violated their civil liberties. It was a Liberal government in 1970 that rounded up Quebeckers without charge and detained them and violated their civil liberties. After 9/11, it was a Liberal government, in a rush to look tough, brought in the Anti-terrorism Act that had a number of serious incursions into Canadian civil liberties.

For the Liberal Party of Canada, civil liberties are not something that we protect only when it is easy to protect them. Civil liberties ought to be protected when they are needed most to be protected, and that is in a time of difficulty. Anybody can stand up for civil liberties in a time of easiness and peace, but what really separates those who believe in civil liberties from those who do not is how they act when times are challenging.

I also want to talk about the government's portrayal of the provisions of the bill as being critical. This is the third time the government has moved to introduce this legislation in the House, and twice before, this legislation has died because the government let it die: once when it caused an unnecessary election that by the way violated its promise of fixed election dates; and second, when it prorogued the House.

If these powers are so critical, the government has to explain why these powers have never been exercised. It is almost nine years later and I cannot find a single example where anybody was put before a judge and where these powers were actually enforced. However, I can tell the House that under our present Criminal Code, which has provisions for conspiracy and provisions that give our police officers the powers they need to investigate any kind of terrorist act, there have been successful prosecutions. We can have a vigilant country that investigates and works to prevent terrorism and respects civil liberties at the same time. We do not have to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of security.

This brings me to my next point. What Canadians want in our country is our way of life protected. What Canadians want is to be free from any kind of terrorist activity that would violate our freedom and our civil liberties. We cannot sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of protecting them.

Ensuring public safety is essentially about protecting the quality of life of Canadians. We hear the government say that all the time. Quality of life can be defined in many ways. If we talk to our family members, neighbours in our community, I would dare say they would define quality of life in a variety of ways. However, I think every Canadian would agree that we would define quality of life by the right to live in peace, the right to pursue liberty and happiness and the right to be protected against offensive incursion into our liberties by our state.

While Canadians are in favour of protecting Canada against terrorism and of having a country that is secure, we are also in favour of freedom and civil rights. Security means feeling safe. It means feeling that our country and communities are safe and that we can safely go out into our streets. However, it also means that we need to feel that our federal government, our provincial government and the courts in our country are protecting us, and this means protecting our civil liberties and our civil rights.

This legislation also engages another fundamental right, which is the right to be presumed innocent. It is not for a Canadian to be compelled to go before a court and be compelled to answer questions under threat of imprisonment. The right to be presumed innocent is the right to sit back in silence and enjoy the fact that the state has to prove a case against an individual. The minute we start making incursions into that right, we are going down a slippery slope, the end of which we know not. That is why it is so important to be vigilant in protecting our civil liberties.

As I said before, we lose these rights incrementally, just a little bit here and a little bit there. Before we know it, there is moderate infringement of our civil liberties. Then we go a bit further, and pretty soon there is substantial infringement of our civil liberties.We go a little further, and before we know it, there is profound violation of our civil liberties. I would ask all my colleagues in the House to join with New Democrats in saying that we will not go down that path. We want to live in a country where we have concrete rights.

My hon. colleague in the Liberal Party talked about rights being in collision and about balancing rights. He said that if people go home unhappy, that suggests that we have the appropriate balance. With the greatest respect, I could not disagree more.

When it comes to fundamental civil liberties, there is no balancing. When it comes to civil liberties, there is no collision. When it comes to civil liberties, there is no keeping everybody unhappy. When it comes to civil liberties, we either have them or we do not. We either live in a country where we have the right to be presumed innocent, or we do not. We either live in a country where we have the right to remain silent and not give evidence that may be used against us, or we do not. We either live in a country where there is no such thing as preventative arrest and where the state must justify putting a Canadian in prison based on what he or she has done or might be doing, or we do not. I do not see any collision there. I do not see any balancing there. The minute we start talking about balancing civil liberties, we are on the path to erosion.

I say that for a number of reasons, but primarily I say that because we cannot protect civil liberties by offending them. We cannot advance freedom by abridging it. We cannot improve human rights by derogating them. We must stand up for these civil liberties. This bill would do only a couple of things, but they are significant things.

I also want to talk briefly about some comments made recently with respect to torture, because I think they are tied to civil liberties.

Recently, the head of CSIS, Richard Fadden, said that the state might rely on information that may have been derived from torture if it is felt that it might be helpful in preventing some sort of episode in Canada. Canada either opposes torture or it does not. We cannot say that we oppose torture except when the information might be helpful. By the way, all information derived from torture is inherently unreliable. One can never say that information that is a product of someone inflicted with physical torture is ever the truth. The only way to stand up against torture is by taking a firm stand against it.

Why do I bring that up in the context of this debate? It is because it is just a slight opening. We might say that we are against torture, except in this one circumstance. No. This is 2010 not 1610. We do not consider it acceptable in this world or in this country to subject someone to physical torture as a means of getting information. The way to say so is to say that we will never rely on it. It is unequivocally wrong.

It is the same thing with the provisions in this bill. It is wrong, and I urge all members of the House to join with the New Democrats in opposing this flawed and extremely dangerous piece of legislation.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his astute and always well-informed comments. I noted that the previous Liberal speaker talked about rights being in collision and rights being conditional. I note that it was a Liberal government during World War II that violated the rights of Japanese Canadians and interned them. I note as well that it was a Liberal government in 1970 that violated the rights of Canadians and Quebeckers under the War Measures Act. It was also a Liberal government that passed the Anti-terrorism Act after 9/11 that had outrageous violations of the civil liberties of Canadians.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would comment on the fact that Liberal governments seem to take an approach that civil liberties can be violated when times are difficult, the very time when civil liberties are most important. I am wondering if he could share his thoughts on whether civil liberties ought to be respected in times of peace but not in times that are challenging, or whether he thinks civil liberties are a core fundamental Canadian value that must be respected at all times.

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to my hon. friend's remarks and I must say that I found it difficult at times to figure out what exactly his position or the position of the Liberal Party is with respect to this particular act.

I know the Liberal Party brought in the Anti-terrorism Act in what I think was a knee-jerk reaction after 9/11. That act contained many serious violations of traditional civil liberties and rights that Canadians enjoyed in this country. I know that members of his party voted against the provisions of that act in 2007 when the sunset clause expired and here they are today seeming to talk about supporting this act going to second reading.

I heard my hon. colleague talk about the importance of civil liberties, for instance, the right not to incriminate oneself, which is a right that can be traced back in this country hundreds of years and has developed as a pivotal, key civil right in this country. Yet, this act would allow the state to force someone to testify without the right of self-incrimination.

I am wondering if my friend can clearly state for Canadians whether he supports or opposes the ability of legislation to violate Canadians' right not to self-incriminate.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

With regard to the federal Task Force on Illicit Tobacco Products, which reported to the Minister of Public Safety in July 2009 on the contraband tobacco issue: (a) what is the rationale of the Task Force and of the government for rejecting the regulation of cigarette papers and acetate filter tow as a control measure worthy of further examination; (b) what specific recommendations has the Task Force made to the government other than that of rejecting the control of cigarette-manufacturing raw materials besides raw leaf tobacco; and (c) if the Task Force has recommended other actions or initiatives to control contraband tobacco that have not been adopted by the government, what are these actions or initiatives and what is the government's rationale for not adopting them?

[Forgiveness of Student Loans for Health Professionals Act, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-550, An Act respecting the forgiveness of student loans for health professionals.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill that would help students and improve access to basic medical care for people across the country.

We know that regular checkups and preventative health care are far better and cheaper for Canadians than ignoring health problems until a trip to the hospital is required, but far too many families do not have access to a family doctor.

My bill would freeze student loan payments for the first five years after graduation for all doctors and nurse practitioners who agree to practise family medicine in an underserved area. After five years, their student debt would be decreased by 20% for each year they continue to serve as family doctors or nurse practitioners in underserved communities. The effect would be that after 10 years of practising family medicine, their student debt would be totally forgiven.

Last year I met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students and they told me about the crippling debt burden faced by many medical graduates.

This bill would help these hard-working students who are dedicating their lives to serving the public and it would help get more family doctors and nurse practitioners into communities that need them.

I ask all members of the House to support this practical idea to strengthen our public health care system for all Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that imprisoning Canadians can be measured in other things, but it is measured in dollars. I did not hear the hon. member answer my question of how much it would cost? He should tell Canadians.

If that is the party of fiscal responsibility as it claims, if that is the party of transparency and accountability, tell Canadians here tonight how much the two-for-one sentencing will cost the federal government and the provinces. I did not hear that answer and I will keep asking it until it is answered.

New Democrats want to make our communities safer and experts know how. They have told us we need to address the mental health and addictions crisis in our prisons. We need more funding for front line mental health services in our communities. We need to focus on crime prevention and youth diversion programs, which are proven to reduce the crime rate, in addition to dealing with punitive measures.

On the other hand, not one expert I have met with believes that building more prisons and locking up more Canadians will do anything to support victims or make our communities safe.

Will the government listen and join with New Democrats in working toward practical and effective crime prevention to keep all Canadians safe?

[June 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question about the government's approach to crime and justice in our country. It was a question about the cost of its agenda. It was a question that cut to the heart of issues of government transparency, accountability and fiscal management.

In question period, instead of responding to my concerns, the minister made a number of accusations about the NDP. I want to respond to those first briefly because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the constructive and productive approach that New Democrats are taking in Parliament.

The minister responded to my question by asserting that New Democrats did not care about victims. Canadians know that as false. All members of the House care about victims.

As a New Democrat, I have stood in the House on numerous occasions over the past months and proposed concrete measures to meet the needs of victims. I have called for the government to spend $5 million for child advocacy centres to provide counselling and support to young victims of crime, a heinous form of crime, sexual assault.

These centres were proposed two years in a row by the former victims ombudsman Steve Sullivan. He asked the government for $5 million in its budget twice. Twice the government refused.

I am here tonight to ask the government if it will support victims and agree to this proposal from New Democrats and from that ombudsman. This $5 million for advocacy centres pales in comparison with the $2 billion that the government will spend for just one of its crime bills, the bill that ends the two-for-one credit for pre-sentencing custody, which is the main subject of my question.

When the government was first pressed to reveal the cost of its two-for-one sentencing bill, it adamantly refused. The government said that these figures were a matter of cabinet confidence. It said that Canadians had no right to know the cost of the bills that would be debated by their elected representatives. The New Democrats disagree.

New Democrats say Canadians have every right to know the government's internal cost estimates. New Democrats believe that Canadians have every right to that information as a matter of democratic principle. New Democrats believe in transparency. New Democrats believe in accountability. New Democrats believe in sound fiscal management.

These are the three qualities that have been lacking in the government's approach to a number of different issues in the House.

Eventually the government relented slightly. It refused to release any documents, but the Minister of Public Safety stated publicly that the bill was going to cost $90 million. That figure contrasted starkly with independent analysis conducted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Reports from that office suggested that the cost could be as high as $10 billion, with 75% of that borne by the provinces.

In the face of overwhelming evidence that the $90 million figure was flat out wrong, the minister revised his own cost estimate overnight. On Tuesday, he told Canadians the bill would cost $90 million. On Wednesday he stated that it would cost the federal government $2 billion.

I notice there is silence on that side of the House because that is tough to explain to people how one can go from $90 million to $2 billion in 24 hours.

That is a 2,000% increase in the government's cost estimate. This makes the government's handling of the G8-G20 security budget look like fiscal prudence. The $2 billion is in direct costs to the federal government with billions more downloaded to the provinces.

Does the government disagree with New Democrats when we say that Canadians have the right to transparency and accountability from their government? How does the government account for the 2,000% overnight increase in its own cost estimate for one of its crime bills?

I wonder if the government can tell Canadians now. What is the cost of the two-for-one sentencing bill to the federal government and the provinces? Does it believe that spending $2 billion for additional time in prisons is necessary and appropriate, but spending $5 million on child advocacy centres to support child victims of crime is not?

[Canada Elections Act, June 16th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-543, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (voting hours).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to improve the accessibility of our voting system and to promote the ability of all British Columbians to exercise their democratic rights.

My bill would change the voting hours in British Columbia for a general election. Currently the polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. My bill would set the hours at 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. This would bring B.C. closer in line with other provinces where voting is open until 8:30 or even 9:30 p.m.

There are many working families in my riding. There are many single parents. Many people work long hours at multiple jobs to feed their families. Closing the polls at 7 p.m. prevents many of these people from voting. Everyone in this House has experienced election day. We know that voting places are always busiest in the hours after work. In British Columbia, where the polls close at 7 p.m., there are long lineups. Many people cannot make it in time and those who do are often discouraged by the lines and leave without casting a ballot.

With voter turnout declining in the last several elections, I believe it is the responsibility of politicians to make sure that the voting system is designed to be accessible to everyone.

This bill is simple. It is reasonable. It would not cost one penny and it addresses a very real problem in our community. I hope the government will realize the importance of this proposal and work with all members of the House to make it a reality.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act, June 15th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I do not know that I can do justice to my hon. colleagues's questions in two minutes. He raises a number of important points.

This bill is about the national sex offender information registry. It is about setting up a federal registry that can be accessed by all police forces. That registry would contain the names of all offenders who have been convicted of designated offences and sentenced to two years or more in federal custody. Nothing prevents the provinces from setting up their own provincial registry, as Ontario has already done. Ontario has a registry and this is the federal registry.

In terms of access, this is a computerized database. An offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence and is properly registerable would then have the information entered into this data system. I have commented before on what those are, including modus operandi.

I must say that a lot of good work was done by the Bloc Québécois on that aspect. The modi operandi of offenders, identifying marks, details of their crimes, where they live, what kinds of cars they drive would be in the registry.

Let us say a phone call is made to the police by someone saying a person is driving around a school trying to entice children into a car. If that call goes in to a police station, police officers can immediately access the database, input that information and immediately identify what suspects might be living in that area that they can target. That is important because it may save a life. It may prevent a sexual assault on a young child, a woman or anybody, and may prevent a death.

That is why we want to ensure that police have rapid access. I believe loosening the criteria is an important step and I congratulate the government on making that move.

I look forward to working with all parties in committee to strengthen the registry and make it work while still preserving some of the other important principles that the government seems to forget about, principles like rehabilitation, respect for privacy, respect for judicial process, and ensuring that we do not put politics above sound, solid legislative improvements, which I think all parties are committed to.