Ève Péclet

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people listening to us today, or watching us on television, to know that when the government talks about its budget and its measures, we feel like it is trying to sell us a car.

The facts are the facts, and I am going to go over them. On September 13, the meat was no longer good enough to export to the United States. On September 13, the company's permit was revoked and it could no longer export beef to the United States. When was the permit to sell this same meat to Canada revoked? Two weeks later.

Was the government telling us that the meat was good enough for Canadians but not for Americans? Are there two different standards?

The facts speak for themselves. Today, we are not talking about selling a car. We are talking about Canadians' food safety and their lives. Why did two weeks pass before it was no longer safe to sell the meat to Canadians?

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to offer my condolences to all families affected by gun violence and all the victims. It is a terrible scourge.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the security of Canadians and fundamental freedoms are two elements that should be guaranteed by the government. Instead of guaranteeing Canadians' security and freedom, the government is creating a hierarchy in the defence of rights, freedoms and security. Instead of defending Canadians in their neighbourhoods against criminals who may live next door, the Conservatives are spending millions of dollars to protect against potential attacks. That is truly ridiculous. Canadians must be protected at home, in the streets, and not in an abstract way with a bill that will prevent a potential future attack.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives probably think so. That clearly shows the government's perspective. It is ready to invent all kinds of reasons to put its right-wing agenda ahead of Canadians' interests.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, because he is a lawyer, section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that fundamental rights guaranteed under the charter are subject only to such limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society.

My question is for the government, which has many lawyers among its members. Is a violation of our fundamental rights, which were won by people who fought for them, justified in a free and democratic society? I do not believe so.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, terrorism is a major problem. Nevertheless, a major problem, whether we are talking about terrorism or drug trafficking, should never undermine the values that Parliament is built on.

I am reaching out to every MP who was democratically elected under the Canadian flag, under the banner of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to ask them whether they are truly prepared to reject the freedoms that people fought so hard for. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a guarantee.

Does their paranoia make them believe that people would be better off without their fundamental freedoms? Are they prepared to tell Canadian soldiers who fought for our values that they fought for nothing? It is outrageous.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of child soldiers is clear. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is someone who is under 18. Any child who is captured during an armed conflict, regardless of whether or not he is part of a terrorist group, is considered a child soldier.

I would remind the government that it signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child—and proudly boasted about it, too. However, when it comes to applying the principles of protecting children's rights, we clearly see the government's ideology behind all of that.

Regardless of whether a child is brainwashed into committing violent acts, a child is a child. It is our duty as a society to protect children. Legislative measures that turn children into criminals and throw them in jail will never be good legislative measures.

How can we put a child in prison and then expect to be able to help that child? It makes no sense. Legislative measures are not the right way to address the use of child soldiers in armed conflict.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, since 2001—over 10 years ago—none of the investigations that have led to charges or convictions has required the use of these extraordinary powers the government is trying to give itself.

I do not need a lecture from a member who made a speech in this House and mixed up the Canadian and American constitutions. She is not even familiar with Canadian fundamental freedoms. She does not even know the Canadian Constitution. I do not need any lectures from her.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I do not accept the fact that government members are telling me to be quiet while I am giving my speech. I was elected, and I have the right to speak in the House.

The battle against terrorism cannot be conducted by means of legislative measures, but rather through intelligence and appropriate police action.

There is no need to pass Bill S-7; the Criminal Code already provides all the tools that are needed, and it contains provisions to combat terrorism. I have a serious problem with establishing a system that forces people to incriminate themselves. Contrary to the recommendations of the Subcommittee on the Review of the Anti-terrorism Act, witnesses clearly told the Senate committee that there were major problems in terms of the protection of children.

There is Bill C-10 and criminal justice for minors, the status of aboriginal children, and poverty among immigrant children: we have been singled out and criticized repeatedly for our violations of children's rights. Once again, the government should be ashamed to have been singled out as a democratic industrialized country that violates children's rights. And yet again, the government would like to pass legislation that would violate the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is shameful. The government members should be ashamed to be smiling as I remind them that they are violating children's rights.

It is also noteworthy that since 2001, over 10 years ago, none of the investigations that have led to charges or convictions has required the use of these extraordinary powers. There is still doubt about how, for example, a distinction could be made in practice between a terrorist act and other offences. For example, the incendiary bomb at the G20 in Ottawa was treated as a criminal offence and not an act of terrorism. The Criminal Code can handle such acts very well.

Bill S-7 would make people with no criminal charges against them liable to imprisonment for up to 12 months or subject to strict release conditions, and the NDP believes that this contravenes the fundamental values of our justice system. That the provisions were only ever invoked once, and the only time they were invoked it was a total fiasco, illustrates that the police have the tools they need to combat terrorism with existing procedures, without any risk to our civil liberties or justice. The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target dissidents or people involved in demonstrations.

I see a trend here. The Conservatives want to prevent people from protesting. I remind members that the right of association is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not the first time that the government has tried to restrict our fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. I remind them that the Canada they love so much was created with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they should be ashamed of trying to take away the freedoms that people fought for.

This legislation shows a lack of balance between security and fundamental rights, and the New Democratic Party cannot vote for such a bill. We must give serious thought to the issue of terrorism, but we must also protect our rights and freedoms.

I would like to conclude my speech by saying that this bill shows a flagrant lack of respect for Canadian values. This is an ideological bill that threatens Canadians and their freedoms. The Criminal Code already contains all of the provisions needed to fight terrorism, and the government should be ashamed of trying to take away our civil liberties to further its own ideological and political agenda.

[Combating Terrorism Act, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech on Bill S-7, I would like to say something. Given that the government considers this bill so important and so significant, I think it is a shame that I find myself once again this week making a speech about it. On Monday, I spoke about Bill S-9. Both of these bills were introduced by the Senate.

I was elected on May 2, 2011, in a democratic electoral system. I was not appointed to a seat on an honorary basis just because I was a close friend to the Conservatives. Ministers should spend less time discussing bills before Senate committees and spend more time reporting to House of Commons committees and providing evidence to duly elected members.

We are opposed to Bill S-7. I would like to tell the government that, instead of getting the so-called other chamber to pass its bills, it should do so itself. If terrorism is so important to the government, why does the Senate have to take the lead after several years and introduce Bill S-9?

The government always says that talking is all well and good, but it is taking action. That is not true, because obviously the Senate is doing the government's work. Either the government does not want to admit that its resources are inadequate, or its priorities are different than it says, for instance, in terms of Canadians’ security.

Bill S-9 deals with food safety. According to the Minister of Agriculture, food safety is one of the government's priorities. If food safety is a priority for the government, why did the Senate have to draft the bill?

I would like to know why the government does not face up to its responsibilities instead of letting the Senate do all the work.

I would now like to begin my speech on Bill S-7, which concerns the important issue of terrorism.

Nowadays, people will cry terrorism at the slightest provocation, but the concept remains vague. It is used quite frequently to create a climate of insecurity. In fact, it is meant to create a climate of fear. As I said yesterday, the Conservatives have often used the concept of terrorism whenever they felt like it to justify the policies or decisions they made that were criticized by the public. The concept of terrorism creates fear, and more fear; it is a vicious circle. This is exactly what Bill S-7 does; it nurtures a climate of fear. It is a rather twisted approach and a concept that remains vague and is meant to make us believe that our rights and freedoms are much better served if they are taken away from us.

Moreover, I would like to point out that these provisions expired four years ago. We have not required these provisions over the past four years. Why bring them back now? They have expired but, when it comes to priorities, the government is well known for making flagrant errors in judgment.

Let us be clear: nobody in the House, especially in the official opposition, supports terrorism. We understand the importance of keeping Canadians safe, and it is one of our top priorities. What we are criticizing here are the provisions contained in Bill S-7. We are critical of this bill's failure to strike any balance whatsoever between two equally important concepts: security and fundamental rights.

The government constantly engages in petty partisan politics by pitting two important notions against each other in order to create confusion in the minds of Canadians and force them to choose between two principles: fundamental rights and security. Yet, this government should guarantee both these principles.

The two principles are at the very heart of our democratic society. The government should ensure that they are upheld without putting one ahead of the other.

The NDP believes that it is important to take strong action against terrorism while also, as I said, respecting the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of our society, our system of justice and our democracy.

In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, the Government of Canada responded, as it believed it should, and under extreme pressure from the United States, to what was an exceptional event. The legislation that was passed, although very strong, contained sunset clauses—and for good reason.

In the days and months that followed the attacks of September 11, the United States, with George W. Bush at the helm, declared war on terror. What I wish to stress here is that changes were made to some civil rights in the name of the war on terror, such as indefinite detention for presumed threats to national security, the creation of prisons, and even the legalization of torture, all shameful examples of the failure to respect fundamental human rights.

For example, the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war sets out fundamental rights. Omar Khadr is a case in point. He was imprisoned in Guantanamo as a mere teenager, which flies in the face of international law.

Canada's involvement in international conventions should never, under any circumstance, be taken lightly. It is very easy to forget our international obligations when the government chooses to do so. Child soldiers should never be imprisoned. This is an internationally recognized principle that Canada should stand up for, without exception.

Canada's involvement in this regard helps to combat terrorism while at the same time assisting in the eradication of child soldiers. Two such fundamental principles should never be pitted against each other. We have a charter of rights and freedoms. The United States may have a point of view that is different from ours, but here in Canada, our rights and values should prevail over any outside decision or influence. That is why it is important not to succumb to Orwellian paranoia, like our neighbour to the south.

The provisions regarding preventive arrest and interrogation techniques were subject to a sunset clause and expired in 2007. It is now 2012. These provisions were included in the Criminal Code for good reason. The balance between the need for security and civil rights is essential. We do not need others to tell us what standards we want to adopt, particularly when those standards infringe on our fundamental freedoms.

The NDP is of the opinion that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and the most fundamental rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial. I would like to remind the House of this.

Perhaps, over the past few years, the government members have forgotten to read our magnificent Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I strongly advise them to do so just to refresh their memories with regard to our values, the values upon which the Canada they hold so dear is built. The weight of the state should never be used against an individual to force him to testify against himself. Self-incrimination is internationally recognized as an illegal and undemocratic principle.

The Criminal Code contains the provisions required to investigate people who engage in criminal activity and to detain anyone who may pose an immediate threat to Canadians.

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. In her speech she spoke about trusting Canadians.

Could she talk about whether Canadians can trust a government and a Prime Minister who, a few years ago, said that an omnibus bill was an abuse of Parliament and is now saying the opposite?

How can we trust a Prime Minister who tells Canadians one thing and then does the opposite in this House?