Libby Davies

[Claim Settlements (Alberta and Saskatchewan) Implementation Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, just so that we do not get too carried away in thanking and complimenting the government in the interest of keeping some balance, I certainly agree that the bill before us today addresses a backlog that has been created, which is a very positive sign. I know this is a very common concern that has been voiced by first nations about the amount of bureaucracy, paperwork and process that these issues have had to go through.

However we also need to recognize that there are many other issues that need to be addressed within first nations governance and within the claims process.

The member is very knowledge on this issue as our critic for aboriginal affairs. Could he comment on whether he thinks there are any aspects of this bill that could applied, for example, in British Columbia where I know there have been a lot of issues around the treaty negotiation process and claims process. Does the hon. member think there are other things that could be undertaken, as a result of the bill, to address concerns that have been put forward by first nations?

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the comments of the hon. member.

I agree that the Prime Minister and in fact all leaders and my own leader presented a motion for the unanimous approval of the House condemning the increase in racism.

It is disappointing that the government has not been forthcoming or specific in terms of what it now intends to do when it is clearly visible to us that certain groups, members of the Muslim community, Canadian Arabs in particular, are being targeted as a result of the aftermath of September 11.

I again urge the government to be committed to a specific action plan that focuses on broad education. For example, the $500,000 that is in the budget now is already committed. We need to be doing additional work in this area and setting up a special task force to monitor these report crimes. I would ask the member to respond to that specifically.

[Criminal Code, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since the tragic events of September 11 we in the federal New Democratic Party have condemned in the strongest possible terms as crimes against humanity the terrorist attacks of September 11. We call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice before an international tribunal to be established by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the UN General Assembly.

We have also been clear in opposing the federal government's decision to commit Canadian military support to the U.S. led military action, particularly given that the U.S. has indicated that it may be prepared to expand its attacks to other countries beyond Afghanistan.

We have also supported calls to work in the longer term to eradicate the conditions from which despair, violence, hatred and discord arise.

We have also urged the federal government to lead all Canadians in fighting against the rising tide of intolerance and racism in the aftermath of September 11, particularly directed at Muslims and Arab Canadians. That is the focus of my remarks in the House tonight.

Canada is one of the most ethnically mixed and multicultural nations in the world. My own riding of Vancouver East, which I am very proud to represent, is one of the most diverse in the country.

While we can all be proud that the very meaning of Canada is about diversity and respecting differences, we must also come to terms with the fact that nearly 275,000 Canadians were victims of hate crimes last year according to Statistics Canada. Sadly since September 11 the number of racist incidents in Canada has been on the rise. We have heard of them as they have been reported in the media.

In Cold Lake, Alberta, Canadian born Muslims got phone calls telling them that all Arabs should be killed. In Oakville, Ontario five students were assaulted for being Arabs. In Ottawa a young Arab teen was beaten unconscious by two other teenagers.

We can only begin to imagine the human pain and suffering that this causes, particularly for young people who are trying to come to terms with what is going on.

We also know that according to the police in Ottawa there has been a doubling of racist incidents reported in our national capital since the attack on the World Trade Center Other cities are also reporting a significant increase.

We in the NDP have called on the federal government to take urgent action to fight racism and discrimination. We have urged the federal government to adopt an action plan that would include public discussion and education and clear enforcement of the criminal code sections concerning racism. We have called on the government to appoint a task force to monitor the reported incidents of racism and to monitor police investigations and prosecutions.

We also call on the Liberal government to reaffirm Canadian values and support for multiculturalism that was introduced as Canadian policy in 1971 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Back in 1971 the New Democratic Party welcomed that commitment. Our leader of the day, the Hon. David Lewis, clearly stated:

The diversity of cultures across (Canada) is a source of our greatness as a people...in every society a minority has a problem, the problem of survival, the problem of keeping alive its history, its language, its traditions, its songs, its legends, its identity. When the majority in a society is as cruel as majorities have often been, not only are minorities crushed but the spirit of that society, the soul of that society, is destroyed.

We need to heed the words of Mr. Lewis today. We need to reaffirm our commitment to the observance of human rights and civil liberties, particularly as we now debate Bill C-36 on anti-terrorism and respect civil rights in this country.

[Poverty, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of Finance said that the government would be loyal to its social spending commitments which, I might add, are incredibly modest, but in the next breath he said that changing priorities will happen because of September 11.

On this international day to eradicate poverty, there is huge concern that the government will turn a blind eye to the five million Canadians who live below the poverty line. I would like to ask the finance minister to make a clear commitment to provide the financial resources for a national not for profit housing program and for proper resources to deal with the appalling conditions in which aboriginal people live in this country. Is that--

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we already have infringement on rights within our society. For example, we have provisions within the criminal code that speak to hate crimes. None of us has an absolute freedom to speak publicly in a way that would incite hatred against another group. There are certain parameters to the rights we all have that are contained in various pieces of legislation. On a purely theoretical basis I do not object to that.

The issue is this specific piece of legislation that we are debating in the House. We have to determine whether or not the powers that it confers would provide the level of security the government wants to see and whether it goes too far in terms of undermining and eroding civil liberties.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, our House leader, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, made it very clear yesterday that members of the New Democratic Party realize that we need to examine the legislation more closely.

Generally speaking there is agreement that we need to ratify all international conventions that are before us. In this bill there are specific sections, particularly the definition of terrorist activity, the preventive arrest, investigative hearings and extensive wire tapping, that need further examination.

These are the issues that we want to examine more closely at the committee stage. We want to hear from Canadians who have not only legal opinions about this but also human rights and civil liberties concerns. We want to determine whether or not the legislation provides the proper amount of law enforcement power to various agencies or whether it goes over that line and beyond.

We will be discussing this with other members of the House. I have flagged some of the areas we have concerns about.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. It is a very real question. That is precisely what is before us. Will the sweeping measures in this bill truly provide a society where we feel more secure? That is part of the question that we are debating. I agree that we are not living in ordinary times, which gives us all the more reason to examine this legislation in a very dispassionate way to ensure that the long term impacts of this legislation, if it is approved, would not have a significant impact on broad civil liberties.

Any member of the House who has begun to listen to and look at some of the commentary and the public discourse taking place will see that already significant concerns are coming forward about the manner in which some of the legislation is written.

That is our job. Our job is to go through that, make those judgments and weigh the need for security vis-à-vis the broader application of civil liberties.

I have flagged a few areas today that I think are particularly disturbing. I just want us to remember our history. What seemed good at the time in decades gone by are actions that we now look back on and say were wrong because we were so caught up in the moment. That is why we must take a very sober look at this legislation.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his thoughtful question. I am very aware of the fact that it was the present Prime Minister, then minister of justice, who brought in the charter of rights. That was a good thing.

However I am also reminded that it was previous Liberal governments that brought in some of the best social programs we have had in this country and, I might add, with a lot of influence from New Democratic members of parliament, but it was also Liberal governments that took away those social programs. Nothing is static.

This is really what I am trying to get at in terms of the political environment we are in and that the charter exists in. As we move forward with the legislation we have to make sure that the intent, the philosophy and the protection provided in the charter are actually protected within the bill.

I can only say to the member that members in this party have no wish to engage in political rhetoric. We are genuinely interested in looking at the bill. That was clearly stated by our House leader, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, yesterday when the bill was introduced, although he did make it very clear that we are not prepared to give blanket approval to the bill and we are not prepared to rubber stamp it. In fact we will have our own discussion about what we decide to do in terms of the support for this bill.

When we participate at the committee the member can be assured that we will be addressing the points that have come forward already in terms of concerns and criticisms. I am sure there will be many more and I am sure that there will be many amendments.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the important debate on Bill C-36, the government's anti-terrorism act.

There is without question deep concern among Canadians across the country about the horrific acts that took place on September 11. As we begin to come to terms with what happened and determine what kind of responses there need to be, we in the New Democratic Party have stated clearly every day in the House that our response should be undertaken through the United Nations and in accordance with international law. It should be a response that promotes peace and justice rather than further violence and militarism. The NDP has articulated that position very well even if it is not popular to do so these days.

In addressing the bill before us today in terms of the measures we are prepared to take and the powers we should confer upon law enforcement agencies, there may be a rush to get the legislation through. However it is incumbent upon us as members of parliament and upholders of the public interest to have a sober analysis and review of the bill.

I have heard a lot of talk in the House today that the bill would provide the necessary tools to law enforcement agencies. A lot of members have remarked on that. I and my colleagues in the NDP want to make sure those tools do not become sledgehammers that undermine or crush civil liberties and freedoms.

In speaking to the bill we must be circumspect. We must be thoughtful and look at what its impact would be not only in the short term but in the long term. I have been reading through various opinions of experts and lawyers and look forward to the opinions of witnesses who will go to the committee. One opinion in particular struck me. The president of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers’ Association was quoted in the media today as saying that to turn Canada into a police state in the name of liberty is bizarre.

As we examine the bill we must look at each and every clause to ensure that the broad powers and measures it contains will be used in a way that ensures continued public accountability, transparency and due process of law.

There was an interesting article in the Globe and Mail today which said that most Canadians would not be terribly inconvenienced by the justice minister's proposals. It said the costs would instead be borne by people who find themselves targets of police suspicion because of their ethnic background, radical political views or association with immigrant communities that have ties with groups deemed to be terrorist fronts.

It was an interesting commentary. It may well be that most Canadians support the legislation because they do not see that it would have an impact on them. They see it as powerful tool to deal with their legitimate fears about terrorist attacks.

However we must examine what the measures are and how they would be applied. One thing I am concerned about is how the measures in the act would be targeted to certain groups in our society. Are there adequate protections in the bill to ensure that the strong measures and broad powers it contains will be targeted, as the member for London West has said, to people who are engaged in terrorist activities and not merely members of this or that group? Will the legislation have an application and political weight that begins to take on a broader net?

Today in the House during question period I raised the issue of students from other countries who come to Canada to study. It has been confirmed by the RCMP that such students are being questioned and investigated, particularly if they are in engineering or scientific programs and courses. While there may be reason to do this, why do we single out a group of people based on their ethnic background, country of origin or what they are studying? This may have an important impact on Canadian students of colour who may be of Arabic background or Muslim students who begin to feel they are being targeted in some way.

This is disturbing. A commentary in the Globe and Mail said that many of us will not be inconvenienced by the act. It said we will go about our business as usual and not feel targeted in any way. Given the backlash that has already taken place in the country we must be terribly concerned about the bill's impact in terms of targeting visible minorities, political activists or even labour activists.

I will focus on three specific areas of Bill C-36. As others have mentioned, it is a massive bill. It contains about 170 pages and 146 clauses. None of us have had time yet to go through it thoroughly. We hope that will happen at committee. However it struck me that there are three things we must look at carefully in terms of the balance between our need to protect civil liberties under the charter of rights and freedoms and our need to protect safety and security.

First, the definition of terrorist activity concerns me. Bill C-36 defines a terrorist activity as an action in or outside Canada that is taken or threatened for political, religious or ideological purposes and threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people, or interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.

The definition is carefully circumscribed to make it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a lawful protest or work strike and is not intended to cause serious harm to persons. The Minister of Justice addressed this in the House today when she was asked about it.

However we must closely examine this definition of terrorist activity and ask a substantive question: Have activities taken place in Canada that could be characterized as terrorist activities under the proposed legislation? There are several that come to mind.

Recently in B.C. members of a health care union participated in illegal strike activity. They walked out on a rotating basis. It was not a lawful protest or work strike as defined in the legislation.

This brings to mind that even Canada has historically developed anti-trust laws which were meant to prevent corporate monopolies from controlling goods and services but which in actual fact were used against labour unions to prevent them from organizing. The anti-trust laws were used against unions to take away people's right to organize.

These historical references are very important. I have a very serious concern about the definition that is being used. While I appreciate the fact that the government lawyers and the government side have gone to some lengths to try to come up with a definition that is specific, it seems to me that the way it is written is very problematic. It raises the question with me as to how broadly that could be applied.

I, along with my colleagues, participated in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas. We participated in the protests. To reiterate the remarks of our House leader in debate earlier today, he made it quite clear when he said that lawful sounds good, but there were a lot of young people who thought they were engaged in lawful protest in Quebec City way beyond the perimeter who did not challenge the wall or engage in property damage or anything like that. There were people who did participate in other forms of more direct action. How would those activities be characterized under the legislation, perhaps not in the next few months or in the next year, but what about several years from now, or if this legislation is still around, a decade from now? The definition of terrorist activity is of much concern.

Second, the other area I have a lot of concerns about is the whole notion of preventive arrest. This is something that is quite a new feature in terms of Canadian law and gives enormous powers to law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain people on the suspicion that they are about to commit a terrorist activity. While on the one hand I think that may make people feel safe and secure, it is demanded of us as parliamentarians to ask what kinds of protections there will be in this legislation to ensure that this very broad power is not abused and that people are not simply picked up willy-nilly all over the place for whatever activity might be deemed to be suspicious or somehow related to a terrorist activity. As I say, these are only a few of the things that jumped out at me as I read through the bill in a very summary way.

Third, there is the whole notion of an investigative hearing. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this is really very new in Canadian legal undertakings, this idea that the police could compel persons to come forward with information before a judge even though they may not themselves be charged with something or they may not know what investigation is underway. In fact one senior federal official was quoted as saying that we remove the right to silence. To me this was another flag going up in terms of how and how broadly that would be applied.

Those are three areas that I think are very problematic with this bill. The other aspect I wanted to speak on is the permanency of the bill. I listened to the news last night and heard the comments made by Mr. Clayton Ruby, a very well known criminal lawyer and advocate of civil rights in Canada. I think he is an outstanding member of the legal community. I was very interested to hear his remarks. He reminded us of our history in terms of when legislation like this is brought in how permanent it will be.

Presumably it is permanent. We know it will go through a review in three years, but even when our House leader today raised the possibility of the notion of having a sunset clause, it seemed to me that the government was very reluctant to respond to that and basically shuffled it aside.

Mr. Ruby basically characterized this legislation as war measures legislation. I do believe we have to look at our history. We have to look at what it is that we are embarking upon. This weekend in Ottawa at the federal council of the New Democratic Party we had a very extensive debate about what took place on September 11, what the party's position has been and what it should say as events continue to unfold. I will quote part of the resolution that was passed by our federal council and brought forward by our international affairs committee.

The resolution states:

--at this critical time it is very important that Canadians be vigilant to protect against unwarranted attacks on fundamental civil liberties and human rights as part of the comprehensive response to terrorist attacks, bearing in mind the history of internment of Japanese Canadians and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in similar circumstances.

I can already hear some people asking why we would drag that up, saying that this is a different situation, but I really wonder if it is. Again, I believe it is incumbent upon us as members of the House who uphold the public interest to look at our history and consider that when these actions were taken, the War Measures Act, the internment of Japanese Canadians, there was also a political climate of wanting to take strong retaliatory action. In hindsight now, in the one case 50 years ago and the other case 30 years ago, there is a serious questioning as to whether or not those particular policies were things that actually needed to be done. I suppose we can say that hindsight is always perfect and we can always look for ways to criticize something that was done.

However, surely we can learn by examining the legislation that took place then and what its impact was on civil society and civil rights, and the singling out of identifiable people, in one instance Canadians of Japanese origin and in the other instance political activists. Our whole society was impacted by that in a very negative way.

I took Mr. Ruby's comments very much to heart as a sobering reflection on what the House is poised to do in terms of bringing in the legislation, which from all that we have been given to understand, will be permanent. What impact will that have on our civil liberties in the longer term? What kinds of powers are we giving to law enforcement agencies that will begin to turn us more and more into a society where more control is given to law enforcement agencies?

Some people may argue that is good and that is the price of fighting terrorism, but I think we have to examine that. We have to weigh that balance between civil liberties and the need for security. We have to ensure that we do protect civil liberties and rights and freedoms in Canada.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was genuinely interested in hearing amendments and feedback as this goes through committee. I hope that is true because to remove the protection for civil liberties is something that we are possibly on the brink of doing.

I have serious reservations about the bill. As it continues to go through committee some of those issues will come forward. I hope that members of the House will not be in such a rush to pass this legislation that will deeply offend the basic values of democracy and civil liberties in Canada in order to do what they believe is politically expedient and because there is public concern in regard to passing legislation.

[Justice, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP have confirmed that students of Arabic background studying in Canada are being questioned and investigated, particularly if they are studying engineering or sciences.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what the legal basis is for this practice. Does she believe that singling out a particular group based on ethnicity, country of origin or what they are studying contradicts the intent of Canada's multiculturalism policy to full and equitable participation in all aspects of Canadian society?