Mario Silva

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I am not opposed to biofuel. I understood his remarks but there has been a growing concern, which maybe the minister could address. The concern raised by the public, both in relation to the higher food costs around the world that many have argued has to do with the demand for biofuels but also the incredible cost that it takes to make biofuel and diesel, deals in particular with the fact that biofuel needs fossil fuels in order to be produced. There is also a cost to the environment.

Like I said to the minister, I am not opposed to it and I certainly am in favour of the fact that we are proposing this amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, but there are inefficiencies as well in our society that we have to deal with. The bigger issue may have to do with our high demand for energy consumption. Nothing is being put forward to address these concerns.

We have many products in our homes that are not very efficient. We have to look at other mechanisms to deal with the issues of energy within our homes, our society and our workplace. These things also need to be addressed so that consumption can be lowered. If we continue with the high demand for energy consumption, there is going to be more and more demand for energy and it will all have an impact on the environment and our lives.

I am not opposed to the issue of biofuel and I see that there is a need for it. I understand the increase to the 5% blend, but at the same time I have serious concerns and reservations which have been raised by a number of people and I would like to have the minister address those concerns.

[May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, all the well-rehearsed statements about its support for Bill C-10 does not hide the fact that the government's proposed legislation threatens artistic freedom.

As has been noted by several observers, Bill C-10 is cunning in its method of censorship and its aim to limit artistic freedom. The funding for projects is threatened only after they are completed. The result is limitation and censorship up front simply because funding will be withheld after the completion of projects that are deemed unacceptable.

I join with the chorus of artist groups, civic organizations and Canadians across the country in calling upon the government to recognize the vitally important concept of artistic freedom of expression. We need to honour our cultural and artistic heritage, not restrict its growth and innovative expression.

Will the government come to its senses and encourage the artistic community, not try to control it?

[May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the great writer George Bernard Shaw once said, “Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable”. This is a statement that members across the floor on the government benches would do well to ponder.

In his gleeful statement about his virtually unfettered access to the upper echelons of the Conservative government, the unregistered lobbyist, Mr. Charles McVety, all but jumps with excitement in proclaiming that his campaign against the arts community had found an audience within the current government.

The arts do matter. They add character and meaning to our lives. They take us beyond the utilitarian nature of life and they cause us to question, to learn and to grow as human beings and as a society.

In his recent critique of Bill C-10, the commentator John Moore wrote the following in the National Post:

The reason the arts matter is because the day man first drew a picture of a bison on a cave wall was the day life became more than a grim struggle for survival.

This is the point which the current government must come to understand. The arts are not some commodity to be contained and restrained using the power of the public purse. They are supposed to challenge our belief system and they are supposed to do so in ways that are provocative and visionary.

What the government is proposing is quite simply more appropriate in a period 200 years ago than it is today. Modern societies are enriched by the arts and by artists and do not benefit from those who would seek to limit their work.

I am sure that almost all members of the House are familiar with the writer Oscar Wilde, whose work was heavily criticized by some during his lifetime. I would defy anyone here today to name the judge who imprisoned him. We remember Oscar Wilde because his work endured; it was provocative and had meaning. We do not recall those who persecuted him because they worked to limit the human imagination rather than free it. His artistic work is timeless. Their names are long forgotten.

In my city of Toronto, the arts are an important part of our community. The arts employ 8% of Toronto's workforce.There are 21,000 resident artists in Toronto. There are hundreds of arts organizations and festivals, ranging from small venues to globally known events such as the Toronto International Film Festival.

In my riding of Davenport, there are many outstanding artists and arts organizations, such as the Clay and Paper Theatre, that are invaluable to our community's life and spirit.

Although the arts generate considerable revenue for the city of Toronto and for communities across our country, their value is measured far beyond the revenue they generate.

It is vital to ensure that the arts prosper in Canada and we can only do this by encouraging innovative, thought-provoking and visionary artistic expression. Bill C-10 has the potential to rob all of us of such opportunities to experience and to question the great ideals of human existence.

Will the government recognize the need to promote artistic freedom by withdrawing the ill-conceived and unnecessary Bill C-10, which threatens the arts community across Canada?

[Omar Khadr, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human rights subcommittee heard testimony from Omar Khadr's lawyer that under the current U.S. military commission, Omar will be sentenced to life in prison even if he is acquitted.

Given the fact that his detention under the military commission act is a violation of international humanitarian law, and given that he is the only Canadian and the only child soldier of a western country still at Guantanamo Bay, will the government once and for all commit to having him returned to this country?

[Israel, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, May 8 marks Israel's 60th anniversary of independence. Like Canada, Israel is a nation born of many people and backgrounds. It is bilingual and plays a pre-eminent role in international development.

Despite an ongoing onslaught by Israel's neighbours, Israel not only survived but flourished.

I am proud of Canada's record and of the record of the Liberal Party when it comes to supporting Israel.

Today, as it has in the past, Israel faces a number of threats, from despots and terrorists who aim for its destruction to boycotts that claim to support peace, but instead only encourage further mistrust and misunderstanding.

Israel and Israelis should know that Canadians stand by them through the tough times and during the celebrations.

I ask all members to join me in wishing Israel a happy 60th birthday and hope that the coming years bring the peace that Israelis have prayed for since Israel's birth.

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we as legislators have a duty to not just believe in the principle of do no harm but to actually enact whatever legislations are necessary to that principle and to make it a reality.

Bill C-52, which is the Canada consumer product safety act, is something I believe all of us in this House should support. It is about protecting our citizens before these toxins get into people's hands.

I believe there is a willingness on the part of the government to introduce the legislation, which is laudable and supported. However, does my hon. colleague believe there is a willingness on the part of the government to commit the necessary resources to make this a reality? That is also equally important. If we are to be clear about our intent, we need to ensure that the resources are in place.

The member made some very articulate remarks about her concerns specifically around the issue of the principle of do no harm and ensuring that our citizens are protected and that we have laws that, as we say every day in our prayers, are just laws but also protect the citizens and health of our country.

Does my hon. colleague feel that the government would provide the necessary resources to implement this legislation?

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member. It is an issue of great concern, and the sharing of information is something I have raised in the House.

As the hon. member is probably aware, I have spoken as well against the no fly list, but the U.S. is demanding it of our country, which is a violation of our sovereignty.

The sharing of personal information is something that greatly disturbs me, specifically how that information is used. I would like to see in committee how this issue could be addressed. The committee stage is a good opportunity to deal with an issue as important as this.

I did not get a chance earlier, but I will take this opportunity to state that Canada is not immune to terrorism. We had a terrible terrorism act in Canada with the Air-India bombing.

Canada has always tried to balance human rights and national security. Getting it right is very important to parliamentarians. It is a struggle I will have to go through as we debate the bill at second reading and at committee stage. When it comes back to the House for third reading, I will make a decision whether I will support it.

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. colleague on the issues of trust, both in our judicial system and in our police.

The Supreme Court has made several rulings, which are worthy to be considered since September 11, and I think I alluded to a couple of them, the Suresh decision and the Charkaoui decision. The court has talked about the balance between human rights and national security. It is always a struggle for parliamentarians to get the legislation right in terms of that equal balance.

I believe very strongly and passionately that our judicial institutions do an amazing job in protecting the human rights of Canadians. I have full respect and confidence in their decisions and rulings, as well as our police forces, which have called for these additional tools as well so they can combat security risks.

There is always a struggle between human rights and national security, but they are not incompatible. There is no question that they can coexist.

Our party, which brought in the Anti-Terrorism Act after September 11, really did try to look at the balance and put in sunset clauses to bring about that balance as well. We have struggled, but we balanced it quite well.

We have done better than most other countries in western European. We certainly have much more broader legislation with respect to rights in Canada than there is in the Patriot Act in the U.S. Our legislations in Canada have been much broader and more respectful toward civil liberties than many of the countries in western Europe.

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to speak to my colleagues on this side of the House. Many of them have assured me of some of the provisions within this legislation. I have also have an opportunity to speak with many human rights groups that also have concerns about what could happen.

I have always believed we have to listen to the different groups to ensure the legislation we bring forward is in fact balanced. I am proud to live in Canada, a country where we respect the rule of law. I know the rule of law and the laws that we make here as parliamentarians are extremely important, both in how we assess civil liberties and human rights and how we protect the safety and security of our citizens, which is one of the major responsibilities we have as parliamentarians.

I take that job very seriously. It is one of the reasons why, even though I have some concerns and reservations about the bill, I have asked that we at least send it to committee, have it studied, listen again to the different groups out there and then make a final decision when it comes back. I will make a final decision when it comes back for third reading.

[Criminal Code, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that the bill we are debating today, Bill S-3, remains a very divisive topic for Canadians and parliamentarians.

We are dealing with a bill which proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate anti-terrorism provisions that expired under a sunset clause in February 2007.

These provisions would essentially bring individuals who may have information about a terrorist offence before a judge for an investigative hearing. It would deal with recognizance with conditions and preventive arrest to avert a potential terrorist attack.

These provisions have gained the interest of the general population and many groups have voiced their opinions on these extraordinary measures.

The first measure deals with the provisions to bring a person before a judge by subpoena or by arrest who, perhaps, on reasonable grounds, has knowledge of the whereabouts of someone who may be suspected of being involved in terrorism activity.

The second portion is equally extraordinary because it deals with the detention and recognizance of someone who is suspected of having something to do with a terrorist activity. As we know, to arrest somebody we need reasonable grounds under our current system.

When we look at that provision, which is the most litigated part of the Criminal Code, we see there is a great difference between suspicion and belief. There is a significant line there and this is why this legislation has raised such interest and concern for Canadians.

Since the terrible attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, which was a crime against humanity, states throughout the world have changed their domestic laws in order to respond to the new realities of terrorism. Canada of course is no exception.

In the United States, the patriot act was passed with wide margins in both houses of Congress, and has since then been criticized by civil liberties groups as fundamentally weakening human rights. Canada also enacted a legislative response to the events of September 11, 2001, through the Anti-terrorism Act.

Both statutes were speedily enacted and intended to address the threat posed by the attack and designed to give government agencies additional tools and powers to prevent and combat terrorism. However, there are key differences between the Canadian and the American legislative approaches.

Prior to the coming into force of the Anti-terrorism Act, the Canadian Criminal Code did not contain a definition of terrorist activity. To date, the Supreme Court has made several important rulings on the need to balance human rights and national security. One important one that comes to mind is the decision in the case of Cherkaoui and security certificates.

Another very important one is Suresh v. Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada discussed this balancing approach in relation to a decision to deport a suspected terrorist from Canada on assurances that he would not be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka.

The court noted that the balance to be struck in this situation was between Canada's interest in combating terrorism and the deportee's interest in not being deported to torture, taking into account the circumstances or conditions of the potential deportee, the danger that the deportee presents to Canadians or to the country's security and the threat of terrorism to Canada.

The Supreme Court concluded that this balance will usually come down against expelling a person to face torture elsewhere with the result that deportation should generally be declined where on the evidence there is a substantial risk to torture.

As Suresh v. Canada illustrates, the balancing process involved, where removal is contested on human rights grounds, is tested further in the context of state responses to terrorism.

It is important to note that after September 11, the United Nations has, on numerous occasions, called upon states to bring to justice to those involved in terrorist activities through the process of extradition or prosecution while, at the same time, reminding states that any anti-terrorism measures must comply with international human rights law.

If we go back to 2001, the sunset clause, originally introduced in the Anti-terrorism Act, states that these provisions would cease to apply at the end of the 15th sitting day of Parliament after December 31, 2006, unless they were extended by a resolution. As of February 2007, no investigative hearings have been held and no reported use of the provisions on recognizance with conditions.

It is important to note that while the provisions introduced today are similar to those that expired in February 2007, they are not identical. Some of the key changes in the bill include: placing an emphasis on exhausting all reasonable attempts for the collection of information about potential or prior terrorist activity before the ordering of an investigative hearing; and requiring the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to issue separate annual reports with their opinions as to where these provisions should be extended.

If we look back to the month of February 2007, the government put forward a motion to extend the measures without amendments for three years. This was eventually defeated in the House by a vote of 159 to 124. Even with ominous threats from the Prime Minister to trigger an election if amendments were made to the bill, the Liberals still pushed to have additional safeguards to these provisions. As such, I am pleased to find that these safeguards, which were also recommended by both the House and Senate committees, have been added to the bill.

These provisions include: an increased emphasis on the need to have made reasonable attempts to obtain information with respect to both future potential terrorist activity and such activity in the past; the ability for any person ordered to attend an investigative hearing to retain and instruct counsel; the flexibility to have any provincial court judge hear a case regarding a preventive arrest; and a five year end date unless both Houses of Parliament review and resolve to extend the provisions further.

However, the fact is the Prime Minister still refuses to listen to the democratic majority and, instead, dictates to the House that no amendment should be made to this bill or, once again, it might trigger an election.

Even the Supreme Court of Canada suggests that the bill be amended on a number of issues. I will not go into all the recommendations made by the court, but I must point out that the government has once again chosen to ignore its important recommendations.

As I have already mentioned, these provisions have attracted the interests of academics and the general population alike. This has been evident in both the House of Commons and the Senate committees that have studied this issue. In fact, these committees heard from a broad spectrum of witnesses, who have voiced opinions on these extraordinary measures.

On the one side, some feel that these provisions do not violate rights, that, in fact, they reduce potential threats and address them in a practical manner. Some would also argue, such as Gary Bass, deputy commissioner for the RCMP, that these “renewed provisions will assist with those who might otherwise be reluctant to testify”.

Mr. Bass maintains that with these provisions, witnesses would no longer have any choice but to testify truthfully. On the other side, people have argued against this view and expressed the opinion that such provisions could be counterproductive and detrimental to witnesses.

In fact, Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at University College of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia, argues that compelled witnesses are still exposed to potential retaliation from those who expect them to lie if compelled to testify.

Also, some have felt that the Anti-terrorism Act represents a substantial departure from Canadian legal traditions and fear that use of these provisions might eventually extend beyond terrorism offences to other more generic Criminal Code offences. Such provisions also make it clear that those who volunteer information to the authorities could find themselves subject to an investigative hearing, preventive arrest or a charge for a terrorism offence.

Canada historically has been a leader in maintaining balance between human rights and public safety. I believe all of us want Canada to remain a safe and secure country. I also believe Bill S-3 could potentially cross an important thin line and violate the rights of Canadians and compromise civil liberties.

I am reminded of the famous words that were uttered, after September 11, by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, in a mass on September 12, 2001, for the victims in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack on the U.S. He reminded us all that:

We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent, or we become like them who are without moral guidance or direction.

Although Bill S-3 has had attached to it new safeguards in comparison to the original provisions, I feel it must be sent to the House committee again to be thoroughly studied and debated so Parliamentarians can make the right and educated decision on this controversial matter.