House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 36% of the vote.
Petitions September 22nd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here, both of which are about equal access to CCSVI treatment for Canadians living with multiple sclerosis. They are petitioners from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.
The petitioners are calling upon the federal government to take leadership on CCSVI. Specifically, they are asking for broader participation of MS sufferers in pilot testing and treatment by providing fast-track funding for surveillance, research and dissemination of findings.
Mr. Speaker, while the NDP is pleased that Bill C-36 has finally been introduced, we do have a few questions about the bill that we hope the government can answer. We do see it having a few deficiencies, for example, the lack of a comprehensive labelling system for products that contain hazardous materials. People need to know what is in the products they are using. There is no acceptable or convincing reason not to inform people of what is in a product.
There is too much discretion in some pieces of the bill. I believe that if human health is at risk Canadians should know about it. However, the government is not required to inform consumers of safety issues that have been identified. This really needs to be tightened up, hopefully through amendments at committee.
I am also left wondering about enforcement resources. The bill would require significant government performance in order to achieve the level of proactive product safety needed.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary has answers to those issues.
Mr. Speaker, better product safety legislation is needed in the country. It seems like every few weeks there is a new report about some dangerous or faulty product. Many of these products are products for children. In 2010 we saw children's toys, cribs and medications all being subject to safety concerns.
Unfortunately Health Canada does not have the tools it needs to ensure the safety of the public. For example, it cannot issue mandatory recalls. In 2009 Health Canada posted more than 300 voluntary recall notices, a third of them for children's products. Lots of these products were not made in Canada, but still the government did not have the power to make the recalls mandatory.
The Hazardous Products Act of 1969 has not been effective in identifying or removing dangerous products. This has meant in the majority of cases Canadians have been dependent on the product alerts and recalls issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission instead of Health Canada. In 2005 and 2006 more than 40% of product recalls were ordered as a direct result of U.S. initiated action.
Successive Canadian governments, this one included, have been happy to promote and applaud corporate trade over the last few decades but not to police it. This is unacceptable. It is putting people at risk.
We need Health Canada to be taking the lead in these instances, identifying and removing dangerous products in a timely fashion. This is why I have asked this several times in the House since becoming health critic for the NDP, just as my colleague Judy Wasylycia-Leis asked before me. When will the government get serious about product safety legislation?
We have been asking and asking and finally the government did introduce Bill C-36 last spring. What an amazingly drawn out process. Delays have been due in part to the government's habit of proroguing when it suits its needs. It has been repeatedly terminating legislation designed to keep Canadians safe.
Here is a summary of what we have gone through. The first attempt was Bill C-51 in 2008. The NDP opposed Bill C-51 because instead of strengthening safety, it was a continuation of the previous Liberal government's interests and permissive attitudes toward big pharma. Fortunately Bill C-51 did not become law, but this was not due to political courage or insight from the government but because of Conservative prorogation after the federal election of 2008.
The next attempt to respond to the needs and requests of Canadians came when the government introduced Bill C-6, the Canada consumer product safety act in February 2009. Again, Bill C-6 did not survive because of prorogation in December 2009.
We have this current legislation, but we have seen more delays. The House convened on March 3 and Bill C-36 did not have its first reading until June 9, three months later, despite the government's repeated statement that the legislation was as important to it as it was to Canadians. Bill C-36 does not seem to be on the House's legislative agenda for the next few weeks.
My question to the government is this. When will the government continue the legislative process for a bill for which so many Canadians have been asking? Will there be more delays?
Combating Terrorism Act September 21st, 2010
Madam Speaker, I note the member's definite commitment to seeking environmental, social and economic justice in his own community and across Canada.
It is a good question about the charter. Section 7 of the charter states that we have a right to life, liberty and security of person but we also have section 9 which states that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Twelve months without a charge, 12 months of just investigation, kind of smacks of arbitrary detention to me.
However, beyond the charter, we have the International Covenant on Political Rights which, in article 9.1, states that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. It looks like our charter. It goes on to state that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. It looks like our charter. It goes on to state that no one shall be deprived of his liberty, except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. It sounds like our charter.
We have domestic law that Bill C-17 seems to come up against, but we also have this international covenant where we have said out loud to the world that these are the rights that we respect, that this is the basis of our justice system and that these are the bases of human rights in Canada.
Bill C-17 goes up against our international obligations as well as our charter, which is part of our Constitution, the basis of all that is just and good here in Canada.
Combating Terrorism Act September 21st, 2010
Madam Speaker, it is almost a cliché to say that the events of September 11, 2001 changed the world, but Professor Wayne MacKay, a professor at Dalhousie law school, wrote in a article called “Human Rights in the Global Village” that this was only partly true because:
—terrorism has been an international force for many years. However, on September 11, 2001 the reality of terrorism was visited on the heartland of the United States and it became clear to all that even a super power was vulnerable to the forces of terrorism afoot in the world. The world may not really have changed as a result of “9/11”, but the way that the United States, and by association Canada, approach the world did. We have become more cautious and national security has become a value that trumps most other values--including human rights.
Like most people, I have a very vivid recollection of where I was when the planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City. I was starting my first week at Dalhousie law school and was in the student lounge, which was packed with other students. We were all utterly silent.
I am not really one for numbers. I can never remember if it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-392 or Bill C-9 in the 40th Parliament or the 38th Parliament, but I remember Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act that was introduced in 2001. I remember it like I remember 9/11 because even though I was a fresh-faced law student eager to learn about this great big concept called the law, a concept based on human rights, justice and fundamental freedoms, I still knew that Bill C-36 was a departure from that base of justice and human rights.
As first-year law students, a group of us started a student association called SALSA, the Social Activist Law Student Association. SALSA was and continues to be, and it is still at Dalhousie law school, the coming together of like-minded students who are interested in seeking justice, environmental, social and economic justice. We want to see it realized in our communities.
When Bill C-36 was introduced in 2001, we did not know what to do, but we knew we had to do something. Therefore, we organized a panel of human rights and justice criminal law experts to talk about the bill and educate us on what was exactly going on and what the bill was trying to accomplish. Some of us wrote letters to the editor, others wrote op eds and we wrote to our members of Parliament.
There was a growing consensus then that the dangers of Bill C-36 were that it would trump our human rights and civil liberties in the face of national security and allow for government to act in the shadows shrouded in mystery and secrecy. However, the one thing everybody hung their hats on was the fact that there was a sunset clause in the act. That was the first time I had even heard the term “sunset clause”. The idea was that after a period of time, a review of the legislation would automatically be triggered by Parliament.
The current bill, Bill C-17, proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that would reinstate provisions from the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 that expired under that very sunset clause in 2007. Very specifically, the bill relates to investigative hearings whereby individuals who may have information about a terrorism offence, whether it is in the past or the future, can be compelled to attend a hearing and answer questions. No one attending a hearing can refuse to answer a question on the grounds of self-incrimination, which is quite different than if someone is in a court facing Criminal Code charges.
The other issue is preventive arrest whereby individuals can be arrested without a warrant in order to prevent them from carrying out a terrorist act. It is detention based on what someone might do. The arrested individual has to be brought before a judge within 24 hours, which is fair, or as soon as feasible and the judge determines whether that individual can be released unconditionally or with certain conditions for up to 12 months. Also, if those conditions are refused, the person can be imprisoned for up to 12 months.
International human rights and domestic human rights are increasingly related when we look at the global village of today. What we do in Canada affects the greater and wider world and our actions have worldwide implications. Similarly, actions outside of Canada's borders can and do have an impact here.
As Greg Walton wrote in a piece for the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development:
Canada has an obligation to provide a model; we need to stand straight lest we cast a crooked shadow.
After my graduation from law school, I had the opportunity to work with Professor Wayne MacKay doing research and assisting with his preparation for the lecture that I spoke about, as well as his appearance before the Senate committee actually reviewing the anti-terrorism legislation back in 2005. While I was working with him, one topic of conversation that we kept coming back to was the idea of racial profiling.
Racial profiling has been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which is a really good definition, as follows:
...any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.
Professor MacKay pointed out that before September 11 the issue of racial profiling was really about driving while black. A stark example of this comes from my home province of Nova Scotia with the story of Kirk Johnson, a boxer whose case appeared before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Tribunal. When Mr. Johnson was repeatedly, over years, pulled over by police in his expensive car with Texas licence plates, the tribunal found that actually race was a determining factor in the police's decision to pull him over again and again.
Since September 11, that phrase, driving while black, has actually been recoined as flying while Arab. Profiling is broader than just race now. It takes into account religion, culture and even ideology. Concerns about profiling based on race, culture or religion are real but they are accentuated by threats of terror. There is an alarming tendency to paint an entire group with one brush when in fact it is the act of individuals rather than religious or ethnic groups that are at fault.
We know about the uproar in the United States with the proposed building of a mosque six blocks from the site of the World Trade Centre. We think that kind of thing certainly could not happen here but here at home, on the day after the arrests of 17 terrorist suspects in Ontario, windows were broken at an Islamic mosque in Toronto. It can happen here and it does happen here.
At the Senate committee hearings in 2005 actually reviewing the Anti-terrorism Act, Canadian Muslim and Arab groups argued that if law enforcement agents were going to use profiling in their investigations, profiling needed to be based on behaviour, not ethnicity or religion. However, in a Globe and Mail article, a member of this House on the government side cited a different opinion when he said, “(y)ou don't send the anti-terrorist squad to investigate the Amish or the Lutheran ladies. You go where you think the risk is”.
Within the context of Bill C-17, we need to think about the real danger of imposing a sentence. I know it is not a sentence in the strict criminal terms of what a sentence is, but it is a 12-month sentence in prison based on something someone thinks a person might do. We can layer that with the fact that we know profiling is happening in Canada.
We know the Criminal Code works. We know there are provisions in the Criminal Code for a wide range of charges related to anti-terrorism. It is working. How do we know that? It is because these proposed sections that we are talking about in Bill C-17 have never been used. Therefore, why would we take that risk?
We have anti-terrorism legislation that has proven to be useful. The reason that these two provisions have never been used and were not renewed at the end of the sunset clauses is that they did not meet that balance between national security and human rights and civil liberties. There is a reason they expired with the sunset clause and there is absolutely no reason for us to bring them back to life today.
Combating Terrorism Act September 21st, 2010
Madam Speaker, my colleague made me think about the difference between human rights and civil liberties. Human rights require state intervention whereas civil liberties are about ensuring that the state does not intervene.
When I think about human rights and civil liberties in that way and I think about our national security, which one would think would require state intervention as well, I am quite worried that our national security has become a value that actually trumps human rights and civil liberties. Any time we go down the path toward ensuring national security, we have to make sure there is a balance among these three things.
Could the member let the House know what he thinks about that balance? Can we achieve a balance among national security, civil liberties and human rights?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns September 20th, 2010
What is the total amount of government funding for each fiscal year since 2007-2008, up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of Halifax, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?
Questions on the Order Paper September 20th, 2010
With regard to the Pre-1986/Post-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement administered by Crawford Class Action Services: (a) how many claims were approved for compensation under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund; (b) what is the total amount Class Members are entitled to under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund; (c) how many Class Members have had their payment under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund withheld; (d) what is the total amount of these withheld payments; (e) how many claims under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund remain to be processed; (f) what is the average compensation Class Members are entitled to under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund; (g) how many claims were approved for compensation under the general compensation fund; (h) what is the total amount Class Members are entitled to under the general compensation fund; (i) how many Class Members have had their payment under the general compensation fund withheld; (j) what is the total amount of these withheld payments; (k) how many claims under the general compensation fund remain to be processed; (l) what is the average compensation Class Members are entitled to under the general compensation fund; (m) how many people did the government estimate they would have to compensate under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund when the settlement agreement was signed; (n) what did they estimate the average claim under the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund would amount to; (o) how many people did the government estimate they would have to compensate under the general compensation fund when the settlement agreement was signed; (p) what did they estimate the average claim under the general compensation fund would amount to; (q) has Crawford Class Action Services advised the government that the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund would be insufficient to cover all approved claims and, if so, (i) when, (ii) by what amount did they indicate the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund would fall short; (r) has Crawford Class Action Services requested the courts authorize a transfer of funds from the general compensation fund to the Loss of Income and Dependants Fund and, if so, (i) when, (ii) what was the amount they requested be transferred; and (s) has Crawford Class Action Services advised the government that the general compensation fund might not be sufficient to cover all filed claims and, if so, (i) when, (ii) what was the amount by which they felt the compensation fund would fall short?
Health September 20th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs are the fastest growing part of health care costs and they are threatening the sustainability of our universal system, but there are solutions. France, Sweden, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand all have universal drug insurance programs. Their citizens spend up to 50% less for drugs than Canadians do for the same medications.
Why is the government sitting on its hands when Canadians are desperate for a workable solution to their unaffordable drug bills?
Health September 20th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, last year Canadians spent more than $25 billion on prescription drugs. This cost could be cut in half with a national pharmacare program, but the federal government is showing no leadership on this issue. The minister did not attend the conference of the ministers of health or the Canadian Medical Association conference.
When will the government listen and take measures to reduce the cost of drugs?