Irwin Cotler

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2014]

With regard to the government’s consultations about prostitution-related offences: (a) what goals have been established for the consultations; (b) what goals have been established for the online consultation; (c) whose input did the government seek through online consultation; (d) which individuals wrote the discussion paper for the online consultation; (e) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (f) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (g) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (h) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (i) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the discussion paper in (d); (j) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the discussion paper in (d); (k) which individuals developed the online consultation questions; (l) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences participated in the development of the online consultation questions;

(m) which individuals with expertise in prostitution-related offences reviewed the online consultation questions; (n) which individuals with legal expertise participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (o) which individuals with legal expertise reviewed the online consultation questions; (p) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics participated in the development of the online consultation questions; (q) what experts in survey methodology, research methods, or statistics reviewed the online consultation questions; (r) how many responses did the government receive through the online form; (s) how many responses were sent directly to [email protected]; (t) how many responses were sent directly to [email protected]; (u) what was or will be done with responses sent to [email protected] that are written in whole or in part in a language other than English; (v) what was or will be done with responses sent to [email protected] that are written in whole or in part in a language other than French; (w) why are answers in the online form limited to 500 words; (x) what is the limit to the length of submissions sent directly to [email protected] or [email protected]; (y) in what ways did the government make Canadians aware of the online consultation process; (z) how much money was allocated to advertise the online consultation process; (aa) how much money was spent to advertise the online consultation process; (bb) where did each advertisement of the online consultation process appear; (cc) when did each advertisement in (bb) appear; (dd) who has read the responses to the online consultation; (ee) who will read the responses to the online consultation;

(ff) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ); (gg) which employees of the DOJ have read or will read the responses to the online consultation; (hh) will any responses to the online consultation have been seen in whole or in part by individuals not in the employ of the DOJ; (ii) which individuals not in the employ of the DOJ have seen or will see responses to the online consultation, in whole or in part; (jj) will each response to the online consultation have been read by one or more individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice; (kk) which individuals in the office of the Minister of Justice have read or will read responses to the online consultation; (ll) has the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; (mm) will the Minister of Justice read any of the responses to the online consultation; (nn) what proportion of the responses to the online consultation does the Minister of Justice intend to read; (oo) will submissions sent directly to [email protected] or [email protected] be read in their entirety, regardless of length; (pp) by what means are submissions assessed; (qq) by what process or processes are responses to the online consultation reviewed; (rr) who has assessed or will assess the responses to the online consultation; (ss) what metrics have been or will be applied with respect to the online consultation as a whole; (tt) broken down by question for the online consultation, what scoring or metrics have been developed with respect to assessing responses; (uu) have responses to the online consultation been screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; (vv) will responses to the online consultation be screened, evaluated, reviewed or monitored by computer in any way; (ww) what keywords or standards have been or will be used in computer screening, evaluation, review, or monitoring of responses to the online consultation; (xx) what scoring mechanisms or criteria have been or will be applied with respect to the screening, evaluation, review or monitoring of responses to the online consultation;

(yy) how is the value of responses to the online consultation determined; (zz) by whom or by what is the value of responses to the online consultation determined; (aaa) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the value of responses to the online consultations; (bbb) how is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; (ccc) by whom or by what is the relevance of responses to the online consultation determined; (ddd) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the relevance of responses to the online consultations; (eee) how is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; (fff) by whom or by what is the probative value of responses to the online consultation determined; (ggg) what processes or guidelines have been established for determining the probative value of responses to the online consultations; (hhh) how is the legal validity of suggestions received through the online consultation process be assessed; (iii) how are responses to the online consultation evaluated for factual accuracy; (jjj) have any responses to the online consultation been discarded or ignored; (kkk) will any responses to the online consultation be discarded or ignored; (lll) based on what criteria are responses to the online consultation discarded or ignored; (mmm) are responses to the online form considered if not all of the questions are answered; (nnn) what processes, metrics, or other criteria are used to determine whether a response to the online consultation constitutes spam; (ooo) what process exists to verify the identity of an individual or group that has responded to the online consultation; (ppp) what process or measures exist to determine whether an individual or group that responds to the online consultation is Canadian; (qqq) in what way does the government consider responses to the online consultation by individuals or groups that are not Canadian; (rrr) by what date does the government intend to have reviewed all of the responses to the online consultation; (sss) will all of the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public in their entirety; (ttt) who determines whether certain responses or parts of responses to the online consultation will not be made available to the public; (uuu) based on what criteria are the determinations in (ttt) made; (vvv) how will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (www) when will the responses to the online consultation be made available to the public; (xxx) since 2006, apart from this year’s online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments has the government consulted;

(yyy) when did each of the consultations in (xxx) occur; (zzz) through what medium did each of the consultations in (xxx) occur; (aaaa) who within the government carried out each of the consultations in (xxx); (bbbb) apart from online consultations on the DOJ website, with what groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments does the government intend to consult before introducing new legislation in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada; (cccc) when will the government carry out the consultations in (bbbb); (dddd) through what medium will the government carry out each of the consultations in (bbbb); (eeee) who within the government will carry out the consultations in (bbbb); (ffff) based on what criteria does the government select the groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments with which it consults; (gggg) since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada, which groups, government agencies, individuals, and other governments have asked to be consulted by the government; (hhhh) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government agreed to consult; (iiii) with which groups, government agencies, individuals or other governments in (gggg) has the government declined to consult; (jjjj) what studies has the government ordered; (kkkk) what studies does the government intend to order; (llll) what studies has the government consulted;

(mmmm) what studies does the government intend to consult; (nnnn) based on what criteria does the government determine whether to conduct online public consultations on a given subject; (oooo) does the government have the capacity to record the individual IP address of each user who visits the online consultation page; (pppp) has the government stored the IP address of each submission through the online consultation, and, if so (i) for what purpose, (ii) how long will such data be stored, (iii) who will have access to it, (iv) what privacy protections are in place, (v) how was the decision to track such data made, by whom, on what date, and with what authority; (qqqq) have any submissions been rejected on the basis of IP address; (rrrr) for what reasons were the submissions in (qqqq) rejected; (ssss) were multiple submissions received from any IP addresses; (tttt) is each submissions from a single IP address considered individually; (uuuu) what efforts did the government make, if any, to assist sex workers in participating in or completing the online consultation; (vvvv) is the government aware of any groups that assisted sex workers in participating in the online consultation; (wwww) in what way, if any, are submissions from groups considered differently than submissions from individuals; (xxxx) does the government have the capacity to track the number of individuals who visited the online consultation page each day; (yyyy) with respect to the online consultation page, (i) how many visits did the page receive during each day of the survey period, (ii) how many visits did the English version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iii) how many visits did the French version of the page receive during each day of the survey period, (iv) how many submissions were submitted on each of those days, (v) how does the government account for any fluctuation in visitation or participation rates; (zzzz) with respect to in-person consultations, (i) in which cities have such consultations occurred, (ii) on what dates did such consultations occur, (iii) in which cities will such consultations occur, (iv) on what dates will such consultations occur; (aaaaa) with respect to the consultations in (zzzz), broken down by city and date, (i) which groups and individuals were invited, (ii) which groups and individuals attended; (bbbbb) how are groups selected for participation in in-person consultations; (ccccc) for each consultation in (zzzz), who attended from the DOJ and on behalf of the Minister of Justice; (ddddd) what was the format of each in-person consultation; (eeeee) what specific questions were given to participants to discuss, if any; (fffff) how much time was allotted for each in-person consultation;

(ggggg) given the number of individuals and groups at each consultation, approximately how much time did each group have to speak (i) to each question, (ii) in total; (hhhhh) with respect to answers or submissions at in-person consultations, (i) how were they recorded, (ii) by whom, (iii) will they be made publicly available in their entirety; (iiiii) what weight are comments from the in-person consultations given relative to responses from the online consultation; (jjjjj) how was the period of time for the online consultation determined; (kkkkk) on what basis was the length of time for the online consultation determined to be adequate; (lllll) how long does the government estimate that it will take to compile and analyze the results of (i) in-person consultations, (ii) the online consultation, (iii) the totality of its consultative efforts on this file; (mmmmm) will the government produce a final report on its consultative efforts; (nnnnn) when does the government expect that the report in (mmmmm) will be made publicly available; (ooooo) what will be included in the report in (mmmmm); (ppppp) by when will a bill be introduced in the House of Commons or Senate reflecting the result of consultations; (qqqqq) in what ways will the consultations influence the government’s policy-making in this regard; (rrrrr) has any percent or measure been set as a threshold beyond which a particular approach, enjoying plurality favour by those consulted, will automatically be reflected in the government’s legislative response to Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada; (sssss) under what circumstances would the government’s approach differ from that recommended by the plurality of consultation participants; (ttttt) what measures are in place to ensure that the government’s legislative approach is reflective of the consultation results; (uuuuu) what is the total cost of consultations thus far, and what is the breakdown of this figure; (vvvvv) what is the projected total cost of consultations, and what is the breakdown of this figure; and (wwwww) what alternatives to online and in-person consultations were considered and why were these found inadequate?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition on behalf of Canadians who are calling for greater attention and a sense of urgency to be paid to the tragic fate of aboriginal women and girls who have been murdered or gone missing and whose cases remain unsolved. Indeed, the RCMP commissioner has recently confirmed 1,186 cases of police-recorded incidents of missing and murdered aboriginal women. I join with all concerned Canadians in calling for the establishment of a non-partisan national inquiry to examine this national tragedy.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I quite agree. I have sometimes quoted in this House the most important lesson my daughter taught me when she was 15. She is 33 now. This is what she told me.

She told me, “Daddy, if you want to know how to protect human rights in this world, at any time, in any situation, in any part of the world, in any place where there is conflict, ask yourself the question: Is it good for children? What is it that we can do that will be good for children? That is the real test of human rights, Daddy”.

Indeed, for me, the issue of the children is at the heart of this conflict.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, if Canada wants to be a leader in this process, the government needs to work with civil society, particularly with women. I am aware of the role of women and what they can endure when there is no protection in the form of peace and security. There must be a collaboration between government and civil society now.

I agree with ratifying the treaty.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, let me just be very specific in terms of what I think we need to do.

One, we need to appropriate and deploy the necessary forces to protect the civilians. The present configuration, UN and otherwise, is not sufficient.

Two, we need intensify international efforts to support a peace process beginning with the negotiation of an enforceable ceasefire.

In each of these things I am referring to the leadership that Canada can take in helping to bring these things about.

Three, we need a major international diplomatic effort to negotiate a cross-line humanitarian assistance approach.

Four, Canada as a lead donor, and I respect what the government has told us this evening about Canadian contributions in so many ways. That should assist us to help coordinate a $232-million relief effort for the eight operations that will be needed with respect to the next three months alone.

Five, we need a coordinated effective strategy involving a coalition of states to sanction human rights violations, as I mentioned earlier.

Six, we must protect civilian communities and engage in a coordinated effort to deliver food, seeds, shelter, water, sanitation, all those things that have been mentioned in this debate and in this regard.

We must also bear in mind what has been said this evening about the danger of starvation and the related danger, a famine in the coming months. This could be a horrific catastrophe when joined together with the conflict itself.

These are some of the initiatives that we can take in this regard.

[Situation in the Republic of South Sudan, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, it is with great urgency that we are gathered in this House this evening, as expressed in the very moving submissions that we have heard. I want to commend the member for Etobicoke North for her initiative and her sustained participation in this debate.

I have listened with great interest to my colleagues on all sides of the House and the graphic accounts of the savagery and brutalization endured by the civilian population in South Sudan. One must never forget that behind each person, behind the statistics there is a name, there is a life, there is a story.

The urgent plight of South Sudan is perhaps best summed up by Eric Reeves, who put it as follows, in an article published just today:

...no civilians in the world are in greater danger than those of South Sudan. Not in Syria, Central African Republic, or Darfur is the threat of targeting on the basis of identity so immediate as it is for certain ethnic groups in vulnerable areas of South Sudan. Given the lack of protection by Juba government forces, the inability of UN troops to protect large numbers of people, and the absence of significantly greater protection from the broader international community, hundreds of thousands of people are likely to die in the coming months, whether directly through targeted violence or indirectly through hunger. It is an unsurpassably urgent crisis and yet the world's response has been in no way comparable to the threats civilians now face on a daily basis.

It is the issue of response that I seek to address.

I must note that this debate occurs at a particularly important historical juncture, for we meet in the aftermath of the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Mass Atrocities, which we commemorated last week, the remembrance of horrors too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened, of the struggle against mass atrocities wherever they are occurring, including, also, the unthinkable, unspeakable, ultimate crime against humanity whose name we should even shudder to mention: genocide.

As well, we meet at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder: the 70th anniversary of the Holocaust of Hungarian Jews, where some 430,000 Hungarian Jews were deported in cattle trains to the death camps in Auschwitz in six weeks.

I raise this, not to draw comparisons between the situation in South Sudan and the Holocaust. There are no comparisons or analogies to be made here. Rather, I have just returned, today, from a moving and painful visit to Hungary and Poland on the occasion of Holocaust Remembrance Day. At Auschwitz, I had the honour to light a memorial torch with the great-niece of the Swedish diplomat and Canada's first honorary citizen Raoul Wallenberg, a hero of humanity, a person who showed how one man, with the compassion to care and the courage to act, can transform history.

As part of Yom HaShoah, we mourned those who perished as we paid tribute to the survivors among us. With them, we said, “Never again will we be silent in the face of evil; never again will we be indifferent to racism and anti-Semitism; never again will we be bystanders to hate or to the pain of the vulnerable.”

And as we stated this here in the House yesterday, as well.

However, what remains so tragic, and this is the theme of my remarks this evening, is that we have failed to learn the lessons of the Holocaust. We have failed to learn the lessons of the Rwandan and Darfur genocides. We have failed to learn the lessons of what we are seeing as we meet in Syria, and where we may well be on the precipice in South Sudan.

In a word, the international community cannot afford to stand idly by when confronted with ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity, mass atrocity, and the crime whose name we should always shudder to mention; namely, genocide.

What makes the Rwandan genocide, whose 20th anniversary we are also now observing, so unspeakable is not only the horror of the genocide, of the mass atrocities in Rwanda, where 10,000 were slaughtered each day, but that this genocide was preventable.

No one can say that we did not know. We knew, but we did not act, just as we know what is occurring in South Sudan today and we are failing to act.

Out of the ashes of the Holocaust came the Genocide Convention, the so-called “never again” convention which, tragically, has been violated again and again. In the shadow of Rwanda, however, 192 states unanimously adopted the responsibility to protect doctrine otherwise known as R2P.

In 2003, in the preface to his book Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Canadian Senator Roméo Dallaire wrote as follows:

Almost fifty years to the day that my father and father-in-law helped to liberate Europe—when the extermination camps were uncovered and when, in one voice, humanity said, “Never again”—we once again sat back and permitted this unspeakable horror to occur.

In words that were eerily prescient--his book was published in 2003, but written before what was occurring in Darfur was even known to any but the very few--he went on to say, “The genocide in Rwanda was a failure of humanity that could easily happen again.”

Yet we are beholding a failure of all R2P, or I would put it another way, a failure to implement R2P rather than a failure of the doctrine itself in South Sudan, and I would say elsewhere as in Syria.

Simply put, we do not even see the invocation of the doctrine itself by the government. Indeed the Government of Canada has been reticent to even use the term R2P, even though it is one of the most important normative, if not juridical doctrines certainly of the 21st century and going back even to the latter part of the 20th century. It has been reticent to even use the term, let alone give expression to the compelling principles of civilian protection, that whole range of protective options that underlie it. But, if one is going to implement R2P, one has to at least begin to acknowledge it, to affirm it, and then move on to implement it.

We must ask ourselves now in relation to what is happening in South Sudan and in reference to R2P, what is it that we have learned, or more important, what must we do and where is R2P in all of this?

In my brief remaining time I propose to summarize some of the foundational lessons of the Rwandan genocide, again not because South Sudan is the same, the contexts are clearly quite different and the factual dimensions, while bearing some resemblance, are also different, but rather because it may shed some light on what we mean by R2P, how we can pour content into it and how we can ensure that the responsibility to protect like never again does not become an idle slogan or cliché, but can rather serve as the basis for preventive and protective action for the benefit of the people of South Sudan.

The first lesson is the danger of forgetting and the importance and responsibility of remembrance itself, le devoir de mémoire, of bearing witness to unspeakable horrors and learning from the collective failure to act which made them possible. Remembrance is an abiding moral imperative that must underpin R2P itself, that we are each, wherever we are, the guarantors of each other's destiny and we must act accordingly.

The second lesson, which emerges both from the Rwandan genocide and not unlike the Holocaust, is the danger of state-sanctioned cultures of hate and the corresponding responsibility to prevent. Simply put, the Rwandan genocide occurred not only because of the machinery of death, but because of state-sanctioned incitement to hate. Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized and as echoed by the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers. It began with words. In particular, the jurisprudence of the Rwandan tribunals demonstrates that these acts of genocide were preceded by, and anchored in, the state-orchestrated demonization and dehumanization of the minority Tutsi population.

I mention this because as we meet there have been troubling news stories reported to UN sources with respect to the use of radio broadcasts in South Sudan encouraging the rape of women from certain ethnic groups, horrific and hateful incitement eerily similar to that which precipitated those kinds of criminality in Rwanda itself.

Simply put, the international community must bear in mind, as the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in the Mugasera case, that incitement to hate and genocide is a crime in and of itself. Taking action to prevent it, as the genocide convention compels us, is not a policy option; it is an international legal obligation of the highest order, so the responsibility to prevent here is yet another compelling component of R2P. In this regard, we must ensure that hate and inciting speech is prosecuted where appropriate, and that those guilty of such incitement are brought to justice, as occurred with respect to Rwanda.

The third lesson is the danger of indifference and the consequences of inaction and the corresponding responsibility to act. Simply put, while the UN Security Council and the international community dithered and delayed, Rwandans were dying. One only has to read the witness testimony on Rwanda in Philip Gourevitch's book entitled We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, or Gerry Caplan's searing indictment of indifference in his book on The Preventable Genocide or the testimony of Alison Des Forges, Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda to understand not only the horror of this Rwandan genocide, but the ultimate horror that this genocide was preventable, that it was the indifference, the silence, the acquiescence, indeed the complicity of the international community that made this genocide possible.

In that regard, let there be no mistake about it. We know what is occurring in South Sudan. There is no mystery. What is necessary at this point is action in our regard.

The fourth lesson is that of a danger of a culture of impunity, and the importance therefore of bringing to justice those who are responsible for some of the horrific acts in the 20th century.

[National Lyme Disease Strategy Act, April 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join in the debate on Bill C-442, an act respecting a national Lyme disease strategy. I commend my friend, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for bringing forward this important bill that proposes the development of a national strategy in response to a growing issue of national concern.

I cannot overly stress how important this debate is, as well as its personal significance for me. As some members of this place may recall, a few years ago my daughter became ill. She had unexplained pains and symptoms of the kind and character that have been described by other members in the House in this debate that led her from doctor to doctor and diagnosis to diagnosis without any relief in sight.

It was a stressful and traumatic time for our entire family, a period and sense of both hopelessness and helplessness. Hopelessness on the one hand because it was unclear what the correct diagnosis was in the place of competing diagnoses, or the absence of any diagnosis at all, and helplessness because it was difficult to watch my daughter struggle and not be able to help in any way.

As is too often the case, one only learns the intricacies of a disease when one is confronted with it. That was my experience with Lyme. When my daughter's purported diagnosis came I read as much as I could about the disease and was shocked at the Canadian experience with the disease when compared to the American one. Indeed, at the time I learned that there was already a U.S. Congressional caucus discussing this issue, and that there had already been proposed legislation introduced south of the border, while the debate had hardly begun in this House at all.

While many statistics have been quoted in the debate here, I would like to take a slight step back to note how Canada has been behind when it comes to Lyme disease. Here, I refer everyone to a response tabled by the government on November 15, 2011, in response to an order paper question from my colleague and friend, the member of Parliament for Etobicoke North. In that answer the government said:

The percentage of Lyme disease cases thought to be reported is unknown at present as Lyme disease has only recently become reportable.

Recall that was in 2011. Now less than three years later we know the reported cases of Lyme in Canada jumped 146% between 2009 and 2012. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, 315 cases of Lyme disease were reported in 2012. According to CanLyme President Jim Wilson, the actual number is likely to be in the thousands given the massive under-diagnosis and under-reporting of the disease. The first reported case of Lyme disease in Quebec was in 2004. It was not until 2008 that the first case was confirmed inside the province.

Referred to as the “great imitator”, Lyme poses great difficulties for medical practitioners because it presents symptoms that are quite nebulous. Indeed, symptoms include joint pain, headache, and fatigue and these can easily be mistaken, and often are, for other illnesses.

Moreover, tick bites often go unnoticed and it is therefore difficult for doctors to recognize early stage Lyme based on initial symptoms that are generally associated with more benign conditions like the flu. It can also be very difficult to diagnose Lyme in children, who may not notice or communicate that they have been bitten by a tick. Indeed, in one recent study published by the journal Arthritis & Rheumatology, the first such study to identify the effects of untreated Lyme infection in children, researchers found that 76% of patients did not recall even having a tick bite.

If diagnosed early and treated with antibiotics within the first six weeks of an infection, the chances are high that a Lyme disease patient can achieve a full recovery. However, if left undiagnosed, the disease can quickly escalate: patients can develop a variety of neurological symptoms and are much more likely to develop debilitating and chronic conditions including arthritis and even facial paralysis. Currently, researchers at a new Lyme disease research facility, funded in part by the non-profit organization CanLyme, are preparing to use genetic testing to determine the extent to which some chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and Alzheimer's may in fact be the result of Lyme or other tick-borne infections.

It is clear that my background is not in medicine, yet I understand as others in the House have said that much research remains to be done and the medical community itself is engaged in a debate over Lyme disease and its impacts over the long term.

This is in part what makes the bill so important. It allows medical professionals to share with each other and with policy-makers across the country at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels their evidence and best practices in order to facilitate a standardized approach to diagnosing and treating this disease.

In particular, the bill would require the Minister of Health to convene a conference bringing together his or her counterparts, representatives of the medical community, patients' groups, and other stakeholders to discuss this important issue. Through collaboration with the provinces and territories and medical professionals, this bill would result in the development of a national strategy to address the challenges posed by the growing risk of exposure to Lyme disease in Canada. As has been acknowledged during previous debate on this bill, Lyme disease poses a major health problem about which Canadians are not sufficiently aware and for which we remain still ill-prepared.

Other members in this place have acknowledged the laudable intent of this bill, which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands detailed in her remarks and has spoken to as eloquently as one could. As she explained, this is a bill that would deal with the threat of Lyme disease by creating a national surveillance system to address the problems of under-reporting and misdiagnosis, which we know can have severe consequences. It would also strive to achieve the sharing of best practices by medical professionals and ministers of health in the provinces and territories.

Before I close, I would like to draw attention to one other aspect of this national health crisis, which is the extent to which communicable diseases are inextricably intertwined with our natural environment. The recent explosion of the incidence of Lyme disease is tied to changes in climate and land use that can be difficult to track and may be overlooked by both medical practitioners and policy-makers. Indeed, the recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change specifically noted:

Substantial warming in higher-latitude regions will open up new terrain for some infectious diseases that are limited at present by low temperature boundaries, as already evidenced by the northward extensions in Canada...of tick populations...the vectors for Lyme disease...

Indeed, there are myriad unforseeable ways that climate change and other environmental concerns may affect public health. While this example is apparent now, there will be other such occurrences and we need to make sure that we take a holistic approach to understanding and responding to these types of threats.

Public health concerns of this kind, which require collaboration and education to achieve prevention, are perfectly suited for a co-ordinated federal framework to achieve, as the bill before us expressly sets out, increased public awareness, consensus for best practices, and an up-to-date understanding of emerging evidence regarding how this disease operates.

I trust that the members in this place will join in supporting this initiative by voting for this bill, thereby sending a clear message to Canadians that we are listening to their concerns, we are seeking to do what we can, and that we will act.

In closing, may I add that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' initiative in this regard is already having a positive influence. Indeed, just by debating this bill in a multipartisan matter, we are raising awareness and signalling to Canadians that this is a public health issue of national concern that deserves urgent attention and action.

I further trust that we will all join in supporting this bill so that we can take action to find the necessary solutions for the suffering of thousands of Canadians. It is a sad reality, as I indicated at the outset, that Lyme disease remains massively under-diagnosed and largely misunderstood, with the U.S. and Canadian experience differing in this regard. Cases have been skyrocketing along the U.S. side of the Vermont, New York, and Maine border with Quebec, though it should be clear that ticks do not stop at the border, as it has been said in this debate. Indeed, the prevalence of disease-carrying ticks in Canada has increased tenfold over the past two decades and there is just cause for great concern.

I am hopeful that in working together to address the situation, and with excellent bills like this going in the right direction, we will succeed in a common cause. May I conclude, again, by thanking the leader of the Green Party for this important initiative. I join again with all members in this place in expressing our sympathy and solidarity with those suffering from Lyme disease, as well as our support and appreciation to the doctors, nurses, and researchers seeking to combat Lyme disease and treat those afflicted with it.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the co-operation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments is a fundamental requirement for this bill and it is the point of the comments made by the Attorney General of Manitoba. I said in my comments that there must be co-operation.

The minister said that this bill was also based on provincial measures. I hope that the federal government will work not just with the provincial governments, but also with the people and witnesses that will appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we study this bill.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his remarks and his contribution to the debate. I indicated that he did make references in his remarks regarding the matter of resources, and as I said, we look forward to the institutionalization of important resource allocation with regard to the four substantive rights and their enforcement, as are set forth in this legislation.

In the matter of victim surcharges, I do not want to repeat what I have elsewhere said in this House, or even in my remarks today. However, there remain problems, as I said in my remarks, about that principle of “reasonable”, and particularly the importance of maintaining judicial discretion in that regard.

Finally, the minister mentioned going abroad internationally and the matter of enforcement, and I commend him for that. I just want to mention my particular concerns regarding victims in Canada of crimes perpetrated abroad. While reference has been made to civil remedies for victims of terror, we need to expand this to remedies with regard to victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I hope the minister might consider that as we go forward with this bill, as well as other amendments that will be going before the committee.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, April 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate and address Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which sets out a number of important rights for victims of crime, particularly with respect to information, participation, protection, and restitution.

For victims and their families, navigating the path of justice, from police services to the trial process to incarceration and parole, can be a very difficult ordeal, sometimes frightening and often costly. Victims may have experienced significant emotional or physical trauma as well as material loss, and most painfully, the loss of loved ones.

As such, it is critical that our justice system and related departments and agencies treat victims with respect and sensitivity, appreciate their concerns, and minimize their burden. To that end, the bill before us appears to be in most respects one more step in the right direction, and I commend the minister for this initiative.

I have certain concerns about aspects of the proposed legislation that I will discuss shortly, the substantive critique that the minister himself invited, but I am hopeful that these legislative aspects can be examined and, if need be, amended and refined at committee.

As I said, Bill C-32 is one more step because it builds upon past efforts across party lines, and as the minister mentioned, the initiatives by provinces, to improve the treatment of victims of crime within our justice system.

Indeed, the preamble of the bill references the Canadian statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime, which was first endorsed by federal, provincial, and territorial ministers of justice in 1988 under a Progressive Conservative government, and updated and endorsed again under a Liberal government in 2003.

Shortly thereafter, as minister of justice, I was proud to introduce the Martin government's very first bill, which increased protections for children and other vulnerable Canadians against exploitation and abuse. In particular, that legislation facilitated the testimony of child victims and other vulnerable witnesses by providing for the more widespread use of testimonial aids and support persons, which the minister referenced in his remarks today. In fact, the legislation before us builds upon many of the very provisions that were enacted or enhanced at that time.

I was also pleased to introduce Canada's first ever legislation to specifically target human trafficking, the contemporary global slave trade with its multiply-affected victims. It is to the credit of this House that the battle to combat human trafficking and exploitation has been a multi-partisan effort. Indeed, the bill I introduced at the time passed unanimously, and in recent years I have been pleased to support efforts by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul and the member for Ahuntsic to build upon that initial legislation.

There was all-party support as well for a 2005 bill that enhanced the national DNA data bank by authorizing judges to order DNA samples from those convicted of a number of serious crimes, including child pornography and offences related to underage prostitution. The national DNA data bank was itself created by the Liberal government in 2000, and has proven to be a valuable crime-fighting tool that has helped to protect vulnerable Canadians and to bring to justice those who would do them harm.

As regards the role of victims within the justice process, as minister of justice, I joined with the hon. Anne McLellan, the then minister of public safety, to establish a national office for victims in order to coordinate federal initiatives for victims of crime and ensure that their perspectives would be considered in the development of policy and legislation, which is a principle and process enhanced by this victims bill of rights act. We also set up a fund to help cover travel and accommodation costs for victims attending parole board hearings.

Moreover, and again with the support of MPs on both sides of the aisle, we enacted important measures to improve the treatment of victims in cases where the accused was found not criminally responsible. Those measures included protecting the identity and privacy of victims, allowing for the oral presentation of victim impact statements, and permitting the adjournment of review board hearings if victims needed more time to prepare.

Therefore, as I have said, I am proud not only of my own party's record when it comes to crime prevention and victims' rights—and here I reference as well the restorative justice initiatives—but also of the many instances in the past when members of all parties joined together in a spirit of collaboration and good faith to advance these important objectives and ideals.

I note with regret that public safety and victims' rights have sometimes been used as a wedge issue in an attempt to paint opponents of legislation that may have suspect constitutional policy grounds as being soft on crime or uncaring toward victims. Yet, victims are best served when we as parliamentarians focus on their interests rather than our own.

Many of the past bills to which I have referred were subject to thorough scrutiny and amendment at committee, a fact indicative not of the weakness of the legislation but the strength of the parliamentary process. I hope that the debate and study of Bill C-32 will likewise be open-minded and robust, as the minister appeared to invite.

In that vein, I will now turn to the legislation itself and to some of its aspects that merit further examination.

First, the bill would establish a number of victims' rights, divided into the categories of information, protection, participation, and restitution. As I said, I fully support the idea of extending these important rights to victims of crime. Victims must clearly be made aware of the rights and resources at their disposal, and they must, if they so choose, be kept abreast of the justice process from the investigative phase to the potential ultimate release of the offender, and at every point in between.

As well, the security of victims must be a paramount consideration, including the protection of their right to privacy and protection from intimidation and retaliation. Victims themselves should be able to share their views with the appropriate authorities within the justice system and to have, as much as possible, a meaningful role throughout the justice process. Finally, victims should be able to seek restitution where appropriate.

These are important rights contained in the legislation, to which I am pleased to lend my support and my party's support.

My concerns with respect to this section of the bill, and here I again relate to the minister's invitation regarding substantive critiques, are related primarily to the degree to which these rights are, in fact, enforceable. It is one thing to proclaim that victims of crime have this panoply of rights, however important that in itself is, but it is quite another to give them concrete expression by devoting adequate financial and human resources and putting in place an effective organizational infrastructure for recourse and remedy.

For instance, a House of Commons subcommittee studying victims' rights 14 years ago found that victims sometimes had difficulty contacting the right person within a government agency to access information to which they were entitled, and they occasionally received different or conflicting information from various sources within the same agency.

I mention this not to cast blame on any of the individuals who work at the Correctional Service , the Parole Board, or any other agencies that make up our justice system but to underscore the extent to which the resources in this system are already spread quite thin. As such, saying that a victim is entitled to information, protection, restitution, or a role in the process is important, and it cannot be underestimated. However, it is not the same as ensuring that they, in fact, get that.

Moreover, for rights to be meaningful, there must be appropriate recourse available in the event that they are infringed. However, the avenue for recourse as set out in Bill C-32 is merely a requirement that federal departments and agencies establish internal mechanisms to receive and review complaints and recommend remedial action. Again, it is not clear whether additional resources would be allocated to ensure that the complaint mechanisms would be effective, but neither is it clear what recourse, if any, victims would have if such internal complaint mechanisms did not resolve a situation to their satisfaction. This potential lack of recourse risks aggravating, rather than assuaging, the frustration of victims.

In short, having raised the expectations of victims of crime, the government is now responsible for meeting those expectations. I hope to hear more from the government, as the minister himself spoke today, about the concrete ways in which it intends to do so.

I will now move on to the Criminal Code amendments contained in this bill. For the most part, these amendments seek inter alia to protect the privacy and security of victims and witnesses, to specify certain information to which victims are entitled, and to enhance the role of victims in the justice process. All of these objectives, as I mentioned earlier, are ones that I share.

There are, however, several clauses in this section of the bill that merit thorough examination at committee so as to ensure that their consequences are fully and accurately understood. To begin with, the bill proposes quite a broad definition of “victim” in the Criminal Code. The minister referenced this definition in his remarks.

The new definition would go so far as to include, in certain circumstances, an individual, and I quote:

...who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage or economic loss as the result of the commission of an offence against any other person.

I certainly understand the impulse to extend the protection and rights of Bill C-32 to as many Canadians as possible, but there may be a point at which a definition becomes so broad that it can be rendered unworkable. For example, if everyone who has suffered emotional harm because of an offence committed against any other person is entitled to make representations during sentencing proceedings or at a review board hearing, as provided for by this bill, might there not be a risk of overburdening the system and slowing down proceedings to the detriment of victims themselves? At the very least, when experts come before committee, this would be a question worth asking and clarifying.

Another element of Bill C-32 that should be carefully considered is the expanded access to publication bans with respect to court proceedings.

The safety and privacy of victims and witnesses are undoubtedly vital concerns. At the same time, requests for publication bans require resources to adjudicate and enforce. It is not evident that our justice system is presently equipped to deal with this change.

Again, to be clear, I do not mean to suggest that the change is problematic in and of itself, but we must investigate its implications and cost consequences and ensure that the government is prepared to make the necessary resource commitment.

Bill C-32 would also remove the protection of spousal privilege such that it would be possible to compel an individual to testify against his or her spouse. As the minister himself mentioned in his remarks, numerous exceptions to this privilege have existed in Canada for many years. This is, nevertheless, a long-standing legal principle, and it will be important to understand its operation and use to fully appreciate the impact, positive or negative, of its removal. Again, this would be a useful issue for committee deliberation.

Another possible area of concern regards the payment of restitution by an offender to a victim. In particular, the legislation would prohibit a court from considering an offender's ability to pay when making a restitution order. This would be a significant concern in cases where the offender is impoverished and no work program is available to him or her while incarcerated, not least because the victim would be unlikely to receive the restitution that he or she has been awarded by the court.

This particular provision echoes the government's unfortunate approach to the victim fine surcharge, whereby offenders are required to pay hundreds of dollars at sentencing, with no allowance made for those who simply do not have the money. Since the mandatory surcharge has come into force, judges across the country have had to find creative ways around it, such as allowing many years for repayment.

Bill C-32 would make an important change to the surcharge, requiring that it be paid either within a period determined by the province or in a reasonable time after its imposition. Yet what is “reasonable” may depend greatly upon the offender's ability to pay. Indeed, to cite certain real-life cases from recent months, it is unclear what would be a reasonable period of time in which to expect a homeless Ottawa teenager or a drug-addicted refugee from Sierra Leone to raise hundreds of dollars.

The wording would likely lead to even more court cases on this front, all of which would cost taxpayers more than any amount they would receive from the payment of the surcharge.

Another aspect of Bill C-32 that must be carefully considered concerns the important changes to sentencing principles proposed in the bill, which the minister referenced in his remarks. For example, Bill C-32 would add the protection of society as a fundamental purpose of sentencing in the Criminal Code. Yet existing sentencing principles already include “the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”. As such, it is unclear what the government is seeking to achieve with this seemingly redundant provision.

I hope that the justice committee will hear from criminal law experts about any possible effects of this change.

The bill would also add the denunciation of harm done to victims as a purpose of sentencing, an addition that raises similar questions, in particular how this denunciation would be achieved in a manner distinct from the denunciation of the conduct at issue and whether the impact of such a double denunciation would simply be to increase prison sentences across the board, regardless of whether such punishment fit the crime.

Finally, Bill C-32 would change the provision that underpins the Gladue principles of sentencing for aboriginal offenders. These principles currently require the courts to consider “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances”, particularly with respect to aboriginal offenders, notably in recognition of the serious problem of the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in Canadian prisons.

Importantly, the Gladue principles do not automatically reduce an aboriginal offender's sentence, nor do they permit aboriginal offenders to escape serious punishment for serious crimes. The principles have, however, been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2012.

However, Bill C-32 would appear to limit the application of the Gladue principles by specifying that the sentence must be “consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community”.

At the very least, this raises questions about the extent to which a sentencing principle meant to facilitate rehabilitation should be marginalized in favour of a more punitive approach. It would certainly be appropriate for experts in aboriginal justice to testify at committee on this point.

Nevertheless, in spite of these areas of potential concern, I will support sending the bill to committee for further study.

As I said earlier, I hope that committee members will engage in that study with the seriousness and responsiveness the subject demands and that the government, as it appears to indicate, would be open to amendments.

Before I conclude, I will turn briefly to measures not included in the bill that could be as important, if not more so, when it comes to respecting victims of crime and to preventing Canadians from becoming victims in the first place.

In our focus on domestic victims of crime, we must not forget that there are Canadians impacted in serious ways by crimes that have occurred abroad. In this regard, I remain troubled by the government's stance on state immunity. Thus far, it has acted to limit the number of state entities Canadians can sue for terror.

While I was pleased that the government adopted the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act just a few short years ago, the government has only listed two states Canadians can sue. Even then, it did not initially seem disposed to helping Canadian victims get justice prior to American claimants seeking to enforce foreign judgments regarding Iran in Canada. There must be a more equitable process for victims than the current listing mechanism that places the entirety of its discretionary authority in the hands of the minister. While I will not dwell on this point, I do hope the government will reconsider its position on this issue. As well, I trust that the protection will be expanded to include not only victims of terror but also victims of torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, which I have referenced in a private member's bill otherwise before this House.

Earlier I mentioned the importance of keeping Canadians from becoming victims of crime to begin with, the prevention principle. Regrettably, the government has not put sufficient emphasis on prevention in its approach both to victims' rights and to public safety in general.

To reduce the incidence of crime, we must combat factors that we know are linked with crime, such as issues of poverty, addiction, and mental health. Efforts in this regard require significant resource commitments and a conception of public safety that goes beyond punitive measures.

This brings me to the final area of concern. Bill C-32 contains no provisions about data sharing and collection or about developing best practices and guidelines such that victims' rights are understood in a way that is meaningful and consistent. It might be appropriate to require an annual report on the bill so that we know how many complaints are raised with respect to each right and how many are resolved to the victims' satisfaction, while enhancing federal-provincial co-operation in this regard.

In closing, I am glad this legislation is before us. While I have some concerns regarding particular clauses, I will be voting in favour of the bill at second reading, and I encourage others to do the same. We all have a part to play in supporting victims of crime. While Bill C-32 could be stronger and more effective, and I trust that at the end of the process it will be, it is one more important step in the right direction.