Pat Martin

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Good questions.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all the very relevant points that the member for Louis-Hébert made, many of which I can understand are legitimate aspects to the larger debate, I would ask her if she feels that the introduction of such a card warrants the overall costs.

In 2000, HRDC dealt with the idea of bringing in a national identity card. It was rejected by cabinet for two reasons: one was the privacy issue and the other was the projected cost of $3.6 billion.

With the merits that she put forward in her speech, does the member think this is so necessary and so critical for the country that we should spend an estimated $3.6 billion on a pig in a poke? We do not even know if it would achieve what it sets out to achieve.

[Gasoline Prices, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in what could only be described as a political death wish, British Columbia's Liberal premier is raising gas taxes by 3.5¢. While the NDP is putting forward meaningful proposals to bring stability to fuel costs, the Alliance-Liberal cabal is assisting Canadians by raising taxes.

Canadians instinctively know they are being gouged by high fuel prices and the Minister of Industry said it is not within the federal jurisdiction. Under the Competition Act, a complaint to the tribunal should be referred to an energy commission with special expertise.

Would he agree that it should be--

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are interested in entertaining that as a friendly amendment at this time. Negotiations like that are usually done behind the curtains.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Halifax said, there does seem to be some contradiction. The Americans see themselves as rugged individualists, an Ayn Rand type of school of philosophy that they themselves would never compromise their freedom and dignity in such a way.

In fact, if we were to raise the idea of them having to carry their papers to go out to buy a newspaper at the corner store, they would be horrified, but yet they seem to be putting some pressure on this country, that they want Canadians to be identifiable in that way.

The hon. member raises an important point, that they even have a clause in their homelands security bill that says:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a national identification system or card.

However, we do feel the pressure. The editorial in the Globe and Mail on Tuesday, February 11, acknowledged that senators like Hillary Clinton have openly and publicly expressed concern that Canadians should be easily identified and labelled et cetera. It does make us wonder where the motivation comes from. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is introducing this when he cannot put forward a good case or argument as to why it is necessary. What then is compelling him to do this at this time?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is the very question that I was just asking myself. Actually the two competing authorities that were quoted, Manning and the authority that the member for Winnipeg South quotes, went at each other on that very issue and disagree. There were two opposing points of view.

In my point of view we do not compromise personal freedoms. I believe that freedom and dignity are things that we can afford and maintain in this country. We do not have to sell or compromise them to achieve greater safety in the community. I do not believe that we have exhausted every avenue of recourse in terms of tightening up the Canadian system as it pertains to terrorism and I do not accept the argument that the national ID card would take us any further down that road to safety and security within our borders.

I do not buy the argument, and I do not even hear the argument being made by the Liberals, why sacrificing personal freedoms or how sacrificing them would make us any safer or more secure. If I were to hear a compelling argument from them I may even be willing to concede that we could give up that little bit.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP opposition day motion which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of national identity card offends the principle of privacy and other civil rights of Canadians and this House therefore opposes its introduction.

I am proud that it was our House leader, the member for Vancouver East, who introduced the motion, seconded by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. Both have spoken very well on the subject and have articulated clearly what some of the NDP's reservations are about the introduction of such a measure.

I thank my colleague from Windsor--St. Clair for sharing his time with me and for so eloquently speaking to this subject just a moment ago.

I will open my remarks, as have some of the other members, with a quote from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, George Radwanski, not just because he puts the point so well but because it gets up the noses of the Liberal MPs so effectively. Some clearly disapprove of Mr. Radwanski's comments. His comments irritate them, so it is all the more reason for me to dwell on them extensively in my speech.

In 2002, Mr. Radwanski in a speech to the Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs said that in a free society:

We need to make loss of privacy the exception, not the new way of doing business. And we need to have an attitudinal change that both recognizes the threats and places limits on them. The burden of proof must always be on those who say that a new intrusion on privacy is necessary to meet some important social need. Every such proposal should be calmly and carefully assessed on its own merit. It should be tested against four key criteria.

It is important to put these tests forward here today. We must ask ourselves if the introduction of national identification cards will meet these tests to see if the cards are truly necessary or if there is merit to them.

The first test that Mr. Radwanski suggested is, is there a demonstrable necessity to address some specific problem? What is the goal, what is the objective, what is the Liberal government seeking to achieve? We have not really heard clearly from the Liberal members to date, other than the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who pointed out that for the narrow purposes of the immigration file, he sees the need in terms of immigration.

Second, is it demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing that problem? We have heard members, such as the member from St. John's, Newfoundland, who seriously doubt whether the introduction of the card would even achieve what few specifics the Liberal government was willing to share with us. It was pointed out as well the very real concern that the introduction of the card by the government's own estimates would cost about $3.6 billion and that is if everything went perfectly smoothly. If recent examples are any indication, such as the disaster of the gun registry, we could expect cost overruns of god knows how much over that $3.6 billion.

Surely it is not demonstrably likely to be effective in addressing even the narrow range of problems that have been brought to our attention by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Third, is the reduction in privacy proportional to the benefit to be derived? Most of us would argue that in a free society the minimizing and trivializing of the issue of privacy is not equal to any benefit that might be derived.

Fourth, is there no other less privacy invasive alternative that could accomplish the same purpose? In other words, have we exhausted every other avenue of recourse to achieve the goals as outlined or the reasons that ID cards should be put forward? I would say that the answer is no, that we have not exhausted this idea.

We have seen member after member rise today to express concern at the loss of privacy, the erosion of our personal freedoms, and the very things by which we define ourselves as Canadians. We have heard very little from the government side as to why these cards would be necessary, other than a professed convenience. We would be lumping all of the other forms of ID into one information card.

Some people are offended even more than I. People were speaking to me in the lobby, asking why we would stop at this national ID card, why not have a microchip implanted under our skin and we could pass by some kind of a screen and the government would have all the information it needed on all of us. Another even more cynical person said we should have a tattoo of a bar code on our forearm and it could be scanned. Maybe having it across our foreheads would be more applicable, especially in the case of the member for Winnipeg South. It would cover up part of his expansive forehead.

Many people view the introduction of a national ID card in much the same vein as these comments about a microchip or a bar code. I guess it is clear from all of the speakers here that Canadians are not willing to forfeit any of the personal freedoms we enjoy as Canadian citizens, especially when no one has made the case as to why it is necessary to do so. We should always tread very carefully when we go down the slippery slope of the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. In the absence of a compelling argument as to why it is necessary, we probably will follow the lead of other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom which have considered this issue, contemplated it, given it serious debate and rejected the idea.

I suppose that using our opposition day motion is pre-emptive in a way. We are hoping to convince the ruling party that Canadians stand fairly united and have reached a fair consensus that this is an intrusion into their personal freedoms that they are not willing to accept.

Other speakers before me have mentioned valuable comments from one of the country's leading constitutional lawyers, Morris Manning. He recently joined immigrant and multicultural groups in denouncing the proposal for a national identity card. He said that Hungary's constitution bans it and it has been ruled illegal in the Philippines. These are countries that contemplated the introduction of such a card. As I said, the government of Australia nearly collapsed over plans to introduce such a card 15 years ago. Mr. Manning warned the immigration committee chair that the ID cards would increase racial profiling, would do little to combat terrorism or identify fraud, and would invade people's privacy by creating a huge database of information.

As a Manitoban, I have a graphic illustration of how personal data can be compromised. When the Filmon Tory government was in power, it privatized and contracted out, sold if you will, the health data on Manitobans, the private personal information about their personal health. The government contracted that out to a private firm, much against the hue and cry of many Manitobans.

That firm, as companies will do, then merged and was sold to another American firm. Now my personal health information is in the hands of a private company in Houston, Texas. I do not know if it is going to sell my personal health information to a drug company that might want to solicit me to buy a certain product, or sell that database to a magazine subscription company. How do we know, once it gets into that realm, if it is really secure?

There is no perfectly secure database system that cannot be compromised. The more important data that is put on that card, the more interesting it is for those who would have nefarious purposes for that card to access that information and steal it. It makes it a target for those who have the wherewithal to compromise the cards.

[Privilege, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am thankful for this opportunity to add some points on a matter that was raised as a question of privilege by the chair of the public accounts committee on Monday, February 10.

At that time allegations were made that I may have committed a breach of privilege as a member of Parliament or be in contempt of Parliament for releasing information regarding a draft report being dealt with by the public accounts committee on the subject of the Groupaction sponsorship scandals.

I should point out that this allegation has more to do with my position as the critic of the official opposition than it does any breach of privilege as a member of Parliament in the House.

I will point out that clearly someone did release information about the draft report being dealt with by the public accounts committee because on January 31 the National Post wrote quite a comprehensive article about the contents of this draft report in great detail. We believe that someone did release a copy of that draft report to the National Post . I want to say categorically here and now, that person was not me.

Further, information that was written in the National Post was picked up by other subsequent newspapers. I would argue that once it was printed in the National Post it became part of the public domain. Other newspapers that were in fact part of the same media chain and own the National Post started to use information that was printed first in the National Post . I did not believe that any comments made by me about the article in the National Post breached parliamentary privilege.

I am very aware of the rules of the House of Commons. Every day that I take my seat in the House of Commons I am very aware of the honour that is mine to be a member of Parliament and I would never knowingly contravene the rules of the House of Commons.

Having said that, I would like to add that one of the points raised by the chair of the public accounts committee in his criticism of me had some merit in that I did schedule a news conference for Monday, February 10, where I planned to speak about some of the issues surrounding the Groupaction affair. Some of those issues were in the National Post already. When it was brought to my attention that holding a news conference to talk about those topics would in fact be crossing that line the news conference was cancelled. It never took place. I do not believe that anything that I have done or said subsequent to that day in any way breaches parliamentary privilege.

I am glad to have this opportunity to express my opinion and clear that up. I believe the issue is more a matter of the concentration of ownership in the media, where when one newspaper gets a story its fellow newspapers in that chain often comment on the same thing. Someone leaked that draft report and I share the concern of the chair of the public accounts committee that it was wrong. That person was not me. With that, I thank the House for its time.

[Energy Price Commission Act, February 12th, 2003]

seconded by the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest,moved for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to establish the Energy Price Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my seconder, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who is equally concerned about this issue.

The bill seeks to establish an energy price commission to regulate the wholesale and retail price of motor fuels: gasoline, diesel, propane and heating oil. The purpose of price regulation is to avoid the unreasonable increases that many Canadians are experiencing today which have a profound effect on the cost of living and a terrible effect certainly on small businesses.

The proposed legislation would facilitate reasonable consistency in energy prices from province to province, also allowing of course for legitimate increases in production and distribution costs. The bill would further minimize the risk of collusion or price fixing in pricing and prevent dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.

The bill seeks to link the issue of price control to competition and any investigation of an alleged offence under the Competition Act would be automatically referred to the new energy price commission. Such a commission would be made up of independent commissioners who would then deal with the matter and report back to the tribunal in the case of that type of complaint.

In setting prices for energy the bill would dictate that the commission must take into account as its primary concern the interests of the public in having energy available at reasonable and consistent prices for their personal, commercial or industrial use.

Everyone here knows that Canadians are fed up with the gouging and they want the federal government to take concrete steps to ensure stability in energy pricing across the country. The member for New Brunswick Southwest and I are proud to present this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Solicitation Laws, February 7th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of my constituents of Winnipeg Centre to join in this debate brought to the House of Commons by the member for Vancouver East with her presentation of Motion No. 192. It is a very thoughtful motion and a timely issue for us as members of Parliament to be dealing with today.

The motion states:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to review the solicitation laws in order to improve the safety of sex-trade workers and communities overall, and to recommend changes that will reduce the exploitation of and violence against sex-trade workers.

I am particularly pleased to point out to the House the tireless dedication to this issue demonstrated by my colleague, the member for Vancouver East. The member for Vancouver East, my NDP colleague and House leader for the NDP, represents a community that is very troubled in many ways, in that it has been the site of horrific incidents pertaining to sex trade workers and street people and in that 66 women have disappeared in recent years, on the face of it at the hands of a mass murderer. Charges have been laid and the outcome remains to be seen, but certainly there has never been a more graphic illustration of violence toward or the exploitation of sex trade workers than what we have witnessed in recent years in the hon. member's riding.

I should point out as well that the member is not new to this issue. As city councillor for that same region for almost 20 years prior to becoming a member of Parliament, the same hon. member was an outspoken advocate and champion for the rights of those disadvantaged people who find themselves in the sex trade on the streets of Vancouver.

I welcome this debate because it is important that Canada get its mind around the laws pertaining to prostitution and the sex trade. I argue that the federal laws pertaining to solicitation are hypocritical, so to speak, because as a nation we are willing to tolerate the idea of a sex industry provided that we do not see it on our streets. Very little is said and done until it becomes a visible social problem evident on the streets of our major cities. It is a contradictory and I believe hypocritical view, which accentuates the good reason for bringing this issue before the justice committee so that it can be dealt with more thoroughly.

I point out that Canada has been seized of the issue before. In 1985 the Fraser commission did a thorough review of Canada's laws pertaining to solicitation and the sex trade. It was at that time that recommendations were made and changes were made to the federal law pertaining to communicating for the purposes of soliciting. Since that time, the review of that law has shown that there has been no substantial change from those actions from the point of view of increasing either safety or law and order in local communities. Again it is time to revisit this issue.

I am particularly pleased that the hon. member gave us this opportunity because my own riding of Winnipeg Centre has many similarities and parallels to the inner city of Vancouver. It is a core area riding with many of the predictable consequences of chronic long term poverty, one of which, as was pointed out very ably by the parliamentary secretary, is certainly the issue of prostitution.

I would like to pay tribute to and recognize in my address some people in the inner city of Winnipeg who are making a difference and who will be very pleased to see that the House of Commons is seized of this issue. Gloria Enns, who was recently awarded the Queen's jubilee medal, runs an organization called Sage House, which advocates on behalf of street sex trade workers. I believe that the emphasis in her work, as has been stated, is harm reduction, taking the morality, so to speak, out of the issue of the sex trade industry and dealing with the more urgent issue of the safety and well-being of many of the people, predominantly women, who find themselves in this situation. Also, the Mount Carmel Clinic in Winnipeg has been a tireless advocate and has done yeoman's work in terms of providing a refuge for people in the sex trade industry.

The point has been made that there is an inexorable link between the sex trade industry and poverty for those who find themselves in that industry. The economic and social inequality of women is largely responsible for the situation as we see it today. It is an issue of gender equality and an issue of human rights as much as it is an issue of criminal law.

It was pointed out as well that those most likely to be engaged in this dangerous activity in the street sex trade industry are: aboriginal women, already disadvantaged in the lowest socio-economic group in the country; substance abusers, those who are addicted; and new arrivals from other countries. We are sensitive to the issue that many people engaged in the sex trade industry find it their only avenue of recourse to deal with the compounded problems that they face in society already.

I know that the member for Vancouver East has done a great deal of research on this issue. Even before this motion came up for debate in the House of Commons, she sent a letter to the justice minister urging the minister to begin an immediate review of the federal laws, as is dealt with in the motion. She stated that the “review of the federal laws...should include two key objectives: to improve the safety of street level sex trade workers and communities, as well as to recommend changes that will reduce exploitation of and violence against prostitutes”.

She does not refer to specific changes that need to be made, but wisely we will leave it up to a subcommittee of the justice committee, hopefully, to hear witnesses, travel across the country and develop recommendations.

One of the things what she suggests will likely come up as the study is undertaken is that consideration should be given to the decriminalization of the sex trade workers altogether. We believe that it is time for a frank and open dialogue about the sex trade and what can be done to reduce the harm, both to individual workers and to the communities impacted by the sex trade industry.

As I have said, we need to change the mindset of Canadians in relation to workers in the sex trade. We need to leave the morality issue to the side and deal with the practical issues of harm reduction, both for the individuals involved and for the community at large.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to draw attention to a tragic issue in my riding of Winnipeg Centre to illustrate that this issue is not limited to Vancouver's east side. I have with me a newspaper article. Just a few days ago in Winnipeg, Therena Adelina Silva was the latest victim in a series of killings of Winnipeg prostitutes, many of whom do their business in the immediate area of my office, at Sargent and Elice Avenues, in the core area of Winnipeg. We are all touched, no matter where we live in Canada, by the tragedies associated with this event.

Madam Speaker, because I am running short of time I would like to raise this issue. I think you would find broad support for the following amendment to the hon. member's motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words “a special committee of the House be appointed” and by substituting therefor the words “the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be ordered to”.