Libby Davies

[Business of Supply, March 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Maybe the problem is that one word was changed in what was communicated to us. The wording that we have reads, “That this House encourages the government of Pakistan”. I believe that is the wording that was agreed to. I would ask the member if he has that understanding.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic the perceptions of stereotypes that on the one hand the NDP is often characterized as being the defenders of big government and we hear about Conservatives who are there for the little guy with privacy and conservative values. I agree with the hon. member when he says it is very topsy-turvy, because the Conservative government and before it, unfortunately, the Liberal government, which was hell bent on legislation that was taking us down this path of erosion of rights. It has been left to New Democrats to stand and speak the truth about what is going on here in terms of more legislation such as Bill C-42, that will undermine and erode those very basic values of privacy.

It reminds me of other historical instances whether it was the Chinese head tax, the internment of Japanese Canadians or speaking against the War Measures Act. Sometimes it is not popular to stand up at those moments when something is taking place and to look beyond the frenzy, the fear and the politics that are created at that moment and to look beyond that to what is being created.

We have done that and we feel very proud of that history, but with the bill, it is part of the pattern of governments which are in effect data mining Canadians' personal information and sending it to foreign security services. There are no checks and balances. There is no verification. There is no process of transparency and accountability. This is one of those times that we have to get up and ask who is watching this. We are doing that and we implore other members of the House to do--

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to elaborate on my colleague's points about this bill. She is correct that the four issues contained in the information that is passed to a foreign state is very troubling.

The other thing that is really worrisome is that a number of these agreements are being negotiated, but none of the details have been released. We know that Canada is negotiating agreements with the European Union, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Panama, the Dominican Republic and the United States, the one we are dealing with today. The member referenced details of the agreement between the European Union and the United States, so at least we have some of that information. However, what we have is scary and very worrisome.

The fact is that we do not have transparency on the other negotiations that have taken place with Canada and the countries that I mentioned, and perhaps there are others we do not know about yet, and this information can be retained for up 40 years. We begin to see the very long-term consequences. That, for me, is one of the big issue with this bill.

Who will remember where it all began? How does one go back to trace that and figure out how these processes began that are debilitating in terms of fundamental rights and privacy? We are talking decades of something taking on its own life and dynamic. We end up in a place where people have less and less ability to, one, even know what is going on and, two, be able to access information or appeal if they feel they have been placed on one of these lists improperly or unfairly. It is actually very scary that this information would exist for so long.

I come back to the Privacy Commissioner's comments and the member talking about the need to have ongoing verification. At minimum, there has to be some kind of strong oversight that is transparent, so the process itself is not behind closed doors. I thank the member for raising those comments because they help illuminate why we are so concerned about this bill and taking the time to debate it to alert people to what is going on.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 28th, 2011]

It was something like that; the world was going to come to an end, or at least flying would come to an end, and our relations with the U.S. on this issue would come to an end.

There was enormous pressure to rush this bill through. Fortunately it did not happen. We have been trying to find out ever since what that deadline was and how real it was, or whether it was just something that was manufactured to create the illusion, as we have seen so many times in the House, that something had to be rushed through.

We were very happy to give this bill a thorough analysis and to listen very carefully to what some of the witnesses had to say in committee. I think we have come to the conclusion that this is not a good bill. It is not in the interests of Canadians. There is no evidence that it is going to improve security overall. There is no evidence that it is going to improve the security environment vis-a-vis terrorism.

We do have concerns, and I think this is partly as a result of what we have seen in Europe, where similar legislation is being developed. For example, the European Commission has taken a very strong stand and has said that if such legislation comes through, it has to meet certain benchmarks. It has to meet thresholds about protecting the privacy of citizens.

It has to protect people's faith and trust that governments will not data-shop information, passing it around and creating enormous data warehouses where information can be used for God knows what and for all kinds of reasons.

There are some fundamental concerns about this bill. If this bill goes through, it will create a huge process and bureaucracy whereby very personal and detailed information about Canadian residents who happen to fly through U.S. airspace will be passed on to U.S. departments and security agencies and institutions, and may well go even beyond that to other states. That really concerns us.

We have all heard stories about people who have ended up on no-fly lists, whether it was because of an error or some bureaucratic screw-up or whatever. We heard about the recent case of a man in Toronto who was not able to board a plane and was in a difficult situation. Any one of us could imagine what it would feel like if we were going about our business, family or personal, and all of a sudden we found out that information was being forwarded to some security agency. We do not know what the information is, why we are on a list, or why we are suddenly being challenged and not allowed to board a flight. We have heard of so many of these cases. It concerns us that this bill would exacerbate and in many ways codify what we have already seen taking place.

As parliamentarians we should be wary of this. Our job is to create an equilibrium. Our job is to understand security issues, but also privacy issues and the civil liberties and political liberties that we all have. In the era of Big Brother, people react strongly to the government's collecting information about them and using that information in a myriad of ways.

We should recognize that since 9/11, groups in Canadian society have been targeted by these kinds of processes. I have worked with a number of individuals and organizations in my riding of Vancouver East who have brought forward cases of people being racially profiled and targeted, particularly at airports, for a different level of attention in terms of security concerns. The whole notion of profiling that goes along with this is concerning.

It is possible that many people think they have nothing to worry about. They think that if they have done nothing wrong, then they do not have to worry. If their names are on a list or if their information is being passed to a foreign government, why should they worry about that? A growing number of people understand that when an injustice or a process targets one part of the community, whether it is people with a Middle East background or people who observe Islam, then an injury to one is an injury to all. That is an old saying in the labour movement.

Although many Canadians may not feel they may be directly impacted by this kind of legislation, lots of people understand that the kind of broad mandate that would result from Bill C-42 would impact some people immediately but would also impact broader society. When the civil liberties and the privacy of some people are at risk, we should consider that it puts us all at risk as part of a democratic society.

We need only look at history to see how those things happen. Historically, the idea that we can remain naive, ignorant or in denial without that affecting us has caused very bad things to happen. Massive violations of basic human rights have taken place by the state. We are not talking here about other individuals. We are talking about the state itself and the enormous powers it has to use information gathering. We are talking about something as simple as a no-fly list and what happens when that kind of list is developed and information is gathered.

I note that Ms. Chantal Bernier, the assistant privacy commissioner of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, actually made some excellent comments at committee last May when this bill was looked at. I would like to quote her briefly because she starts saying right off that “privacy and security do not have to be at odds”.

In fact, she says that they should be integrated and that they do converge. She said:

The first one is that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon, unless it is demonstrably necessary for the public good. It follows, then, that the collection of personal information can only occur when it is proven necessary, and it must be proportionate to that necessity. Third, that necessity must be assessed on an ongoing basis by verifying that the collection of personal information is indeed effective and necessary in relation to the identified necessity. Finally, it must also be demonstrated that there are no less privacy-intrusive measures available to reach the same goal.

I believe that is a very serious statement.

There are a couple of things happening here. If approved, this bill will set into motion a whole set of procedures regarding the transfer of information about Canadians who happen to be flying over U.S. airspace.

Ms. Bernier is making the point that there has to be ongoing verification. Something can happen and we can respond to that. However, as the environment changes, where are those checks and balances to ensure that the provisions that are put in place are not of a nature so stringent that they take on a life of their own and begin to culturally assimilate into society until it is no longer noticeable that is taking place? She is making a very important point about the need for ongoing verification of the collection of personal information that it is actually effective and necessary.

The other point she makes is that work is required to show that other measures that are less privacy-intrusive could not have been used to achieve the same goal. I do not know if we have had that discussion. I am not on the committee and I do not know if it dealt with that. However, again, she has hit the nail on the head here in identifying another key principle. It is very easy for governments to sort of strike out and, in its almost absolute power over these things, create a mechanism that is all-encompassing, that casts a very wide net, much wider than need be.

Regarding the objective of a security concern, the assistant privacy commissioner sets out a test here that needs to be examined. If I paraphrase what she is saying it is this. What would be the lowest threshold measure that could be taken in respect of privacy to meet the needs of security and the public good without violating privacy? Again, we do not really have any information to allow us to determine whether or not that actually took place.

She also makes the point that it has to be demonstrated that any of the security measures, that violate privacy and people's rights, have to be for the public good. This is where members of Parliament need to come in because our job in this place is to uphold the public interest, not private interests, which includes privacy. I do not think that is a contradiction. It is the public interest based on checks and balances to ensure that any system put in place is not onerous to the extent that it has cast such a wide net that it actually is not appropriate and will have far-reaching consequences.

Again, the assistant privacy commissioner has made a very good point in establishing a test as to whether or not these measures are actually deemed to be for the public good, or the fact that they are so heavy-handed in infringing upon individual, human, and privacy rights, that they actually end up being offensive and intrusive measures that should not be allowed to be established.

Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that we do not like this bill. We do not think this bill should go through. We are very concerned that there was an attempt to rush it through Parliament when there has been no evidence that it needed to be. We would much prefer to apply the principle of caution when it comes to these kinds of measures. It seems to me that the federal government or any state has enormous resources at its disposal already to deal with security concerns.

I was in the House when the Anti-terrorism Act, then Bill C-36, was first approved. It was rushed through as well. That bill, in and of itself, has dramatically changed historically the way we deal with security in this country. It gives enormous power to the state to get involved in people's lives and to make decisions without due process, and without proper judicial oversight and review.

To me, Bill C-42 is just kind of a consequence of that. So here we are on this path. The course of least resistance is to say, “Let it go through”. We are here today to say that we do not believe that and we do not think we should let it go through. We believe in that principle of caution. We believe in some fundamental values here of protecting Canadians' privacy. If we cannot do that as parliamentarians, then who will?

I do think there are some really excellent civil society groups in Canadian society that have done amazing work in bringing forward cases. One only has to look at the absolute horror of what happened to Maher Arar and information there that was passed to foreign governments and the price that he and his family paid. Certainly, his wife, Monia Mazigh, was an amazing person in her own right who led that fight. There were many groups that supported that struggle to ensure justice was done.

I do not diminish the work of those organizations and individuals who very courageously bring forward these issues, sometimes in a political climate of fear, in a political climate that becomes very divisive, where it is easy for the government to say it is them and us, and where we can play on people's fears. I really abhor that. I think it is the antithesis of what we should be doing as a democratic government and what we should be doing as parliamentarians.

However, the point I was getting to is that at the end of the day I do believe it is us as elected parliamentarians who represent that broad public interest, who have to do due diligence on this bill. We have to be cautious, challenging, and we have to be suspicious in many ways, and not necessarily accept the arguments given to us as to why this bill should be approved or why it should have been rushed through.

I am happy to have spoken to this bill and I hope that others in the House will as well.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak at third reading on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I did speak on this bill earlier, at second reading, and I think also at report stage. I certainly share some of the very serious reservations that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have about this bill. I am very pleased that a number of us are getting up to speak on this bill. I would certainly echo the comments of the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Elmwood—Transcona that it is very disappointing that although we have heard other members of the House express concerns about the bill, apparently they are making a decision not to participate in the debate.

The reason we debate legislation is to have a thorough airing of what legislation is about and what its impacts and consequences will be. A bill is sent to committee, where it is examined very thoroughly and witnesses are called.

I do find that in this current political environment, a pattern that has been emerging is this idea that everything has to be rushed through. Everything gets a once-over, a quick once-over, and then off it goes. We get through it quickly at committee and call in a few witnesses. It seems to me that long gone are the days when parliamentarians examined legislation very carefully and tried to think about what the impacts of legislation might be immediately and in the longer term.

It strikes me that this is one of those bills that we have to look at not only in terms of the immediate impact on Canadians but also in terms of the longer-term effects. That is why I am very proud that members of the NDP have debated this bill very seriously. We have treated it very seriously in committee; here we are at third reading, final reading, and we are not prepared to say that we will just let it go and that it has had the kind of examination it needs, because we still have a lot of questions about this bill.

Even at third reading, it is not too late. I appeal to some of the Liberal members that it is not too late to reflect on this bill and to make a decision that it should not be allowed to pass third reading and then, of course, go to the Senate, where it will just be rubber-stamped and go through now that a Conservative majority has been appointed in the unelected Senate.

As a result, we take our work even more seriously, because we know that any examination that needs to be done has to be done in this place, has to be done in committee and has to be done by people who are following the bill, by calling in witnesses and hearing the expertise and experience that exist on this file.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act does have a history. I remember when we debated it just before the holiday recess in December. We were told that this bill had to be passed by the House, that there was a deadline, that the U.S. government was insistent that this bill be passed and it had to be done by such-and-such a date. I do not remember exactly what that date was, but all of a sudden—

[Points of Order, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience. I know that this is a complicated issue and you are listening carefully to what all members have to say.

I am now rising on a point of order. It is a related matter and has to do with the process whereby members raise questions of privilege based on a committee report.

I want to draw it to your attention because I have to say, the way things unfolded yesterday really bothered me, and I want to get some better understanding and clarity about what your understanding is of the practices and the rules for questions of privilege.

You will recall yesterday that the member for Ottawa Centre rose on a question of privilege. When you recognized him, I think you asked whether it was a point of order or a question of privilege, and he made it quite clear it was a question of privilege. Then you recognized the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and heard his question of privilege on the same question. We were wondering why that was, because the member for Ottawa Centre had made it clear it was a question of privilege.

Later, we realized that the letters that had gone in as a result of the committee report, the letter from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood actually came to the table moments prior to the committee report being tabled in the House, an the letter from the member for Ottawa Centre came in exactly after the report was tabled.

In fact, the member for Ottawa Centre was in the House. He watched the report being tabled. He immediately brought his letter forward and therefore believed that he had followed the practices and the rules and he would raise his question of privilege.

I do believe there is confusion as to whether or not a member can write a letter to you raising a question of privilege on a report from a committee that has not yet been tabled.

We believed we were playing by the rules, only to learn that things could go in earlier. If that is the way it is to be, then I think we should be clear about that. Believe me, if we speculate that a report might be coming, we will rush forward and get a letter in. Maybe we will do it a day ahead of time in the belief that something will happen. I think it does raise the question about whether we can even raise a question of privilege by submitting a letter if the report has not yet been tabled.

I realize it is a process question. I realize you are dealing with a bigger issue here, but I have to say it did cause us some concern. We want to be clear on your understanding of the practices and rules around a letter submitted to you when it involves a committee report.

I place that before you, Mr. Speaker, with good intention and look forward to the response.

[Privilege, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question of privilege and I also have a point of order. They are related, but I would like to begin with the question of privilege.

Yesterday, we heard in the House from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Ottawa Centre about the question of the Minister of International Cooperation and the belief and allegations that the minister has deliberately misled the House and the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some information on that same question of privilege by bringing to your attention a very recent ruling from the legislature of Saskatchewan. It is a speaker's ruling from Tuesday, May 4, 2010. It has to do with representations by a minister and, in this particular case, whether or not the minister of health had committed contempt by purposely misleading the assembly about a particular matter.

While I will not go into the case, I do want to quote a section of that speaker's ruling, because I believe it will assist you, Mr. Speaker, in your deliberations on the matter before you.

The speaker from the Saskatchewan legislature said:

The charge that a member has made deliberately misleading statements, if well-founded, has been treated as contempt by this Legislative Assembly and other parliaments. On November 3, 2009, I addressed another case of alleged contempt for misleading statements. In that case I referenced precedents that established differences in the way such cases are treated in Saskatchewan compared to other jurisdictions. I will not repeat those precedents except to say they are dated November 18, 1975 and July 13, 1982. These precedents established that in Saskatchewan, the threshold of proof of an offence is not restricted to an admission of guilt. Contempt has been found on the basis of evidence. In this situation the minister has not admitted to have misled the Assembly so the case must be reviewed on the documentary evidence provided by the Opposition House Leader.

The speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature, in his ruling, then went on to look at the evidence in that particular case. I will not go into that, but I do want to quote the conclusion of the speaker in Saskatchewan:

Because of these troubling questions and inconsistencies, I find there is sufficient evidence and reason to warrant the Assembly taking up this question, and as such find that a prima facie case has been established.

I believe that in this ruling, the speaker in Saskatchewan clearly established that the test is not the member's statement in reply to an allegation, but it is actually the evidence before the speaker that establishes the prima facie case. I do think that is relevant to the case that was put yesterday in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you have yet to hear from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, but I hope you will consider this information from Saskatchewan relevant to your deliberation.

[International Co-operation, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, is accountability a meaningless concept? Is answering a question actually beneath the Conservatives?

We have become accustomed to the Conservatives' methods, the promises of openness followed by secrecy, promises of transparency followed by withholding crucial financial information, promises to close revolving doors for lobbyists followed by unprecedented access to ministers, and now condoning of unethical behaviour.

Will the Conservatives grow up and take responsibility for these mistakes?

[International Co-operation, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government House leader used the word “courageous” eight times during question period, once describing a wounded veteran, but seven times referring to the Minister of International Cooperation, and twice already today.

Let us see, “courage” is misleading a parliamentary committee and pretending bureaucrats recommended this decision.

Real courage is showing leadership, acknowledging a mistake and taking responsibility.

When will the government stop talking its mindless talking points and take responsibility for this gross misconduct?

[Business of Supply, February 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is just incredulous. It is outrageous. The member uses the example of one bill and the gap between what the Parliamentary Budget Officer says and the government says is the cost of that bill, $90 million, and then it is into the billions of dollars. This is astounding. This is why we have to get to the bottom of it.

Bill C-59, which we just passed yesterday, was rammed through by the government in a matter of a couple of days. The committee meeting was held for a few hours at 11 o'clock at night. In fact, there were witnesses who wanted to come who could not make it because of the short time. This is not democracy.

For a deputy minister to say she knows the information but she is not going to disclose it to us is an affront to every element and principle of democracy and to how the House functions. This is why it has to stop. This is why this motion has to be passed and implemented.