Paul Dewar

[Canada Elections Act, November 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we actually opposed Bill C-31 in committee because we did not see the problem that, I guess, the government and other parties saw. The remedy certainly was problematic. In fact, this is a solution that seems to be looking for a problem at this point.

Did the government consult, beyond what the committee heard most recently in September, any other stakeholders in the time period since the procedure and House affairs committee met? Has it consulted various diverse communities and, if it did, what was the feedback on this bill?

[Canada Evidence Act, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I support and speak in favour of this bill, along with my party.

Many things that have been discussed and put forward in support of this bill, but some of those ideas and concepts bear repeating. I hope to touch on a couple of other facets of the bill that are worthy of underlining.

I will say at the beginning that we do support this bill and, if there are ways to improve it, it will be done at committee.

One of the things that is most disturbing in any democracy is any attempt to close off or shut down the freedom of the press. Members will know of the most recent events around the world where the rights of the press have been suppressed. I think of the recent situation that we are watching with great unease in Burma. When we look at the freedom of the press, which seems to be challenged around the world these days, and certainly this has been documented, journalists are having a harder time doing their jobs.

Many of us in this place from time to time might disagree with how journalists contemplate or exercise that freedom but no one in this place would be in any way critical of their right to have an opinion and to ensure it is unfettered, with some obvious qualifications and responsibilities.

I say that in general because this is too important an issue to play partisan politics with. This is a foundation of our democracy, that is, the freedom of the press and the freedom of those who are practitioners in the fourth estate, to ensure they are able to do their jobs without the state interfering unnecessarily.

Therefore, the bill in front of us is critical. What is being attempted here meets the nod test from us but we need to ensure there is more clarity for judges, that there are cleaner and clearer guidelines for judges.

We have mentioned the case of Juliet O'Neill from the Ottawa Citizen. Many of us, not only in my home town here in Ottawa, were aghast at what happened in that case. I think people right across the country and indeed those who were following the story internationally, were surprised, saddened and very concerned that this could happen.

If we look at what journalists' responsibilities are, they have many, but they have a responsibility to protect sources at times. We see this not only in the field of journalism but in the field of litigation. We see it with lawyers and with doctors. We actually see it with those who are from faith communities, that there is some delegation of trust. I think most people understand that there is an understanding and a responsibility of confidentiality.

What is the responsibility of confidentiality, in this case of journalists, and the role of the state for reasons of national security? How are those two things dealt with? How do we navigate those waters?

The bill sets out to lay down some criteria that is important. A colleague from the Bloc has already spoken about this. The first couple of paragraphs of the bill are more or less descriptive and then we get into the meat of it, particularly when we get into section four, and that is the power of the judge. Judges may, on their own initiative, raise the potential application of subsection three and ask the prosecution and the defence and any other party to present an opinion on the matter. I think that gets things going.

Then we get to subsection five, which reads:

A judge may not order a journalist to disclose to a person the source of any information that the journalist has gathered, written, produced or disseminated for the public through any media, unless the judge considers....

There is where we get the required clarity, the clarity that was required certainly in the case of Juliet O'Neill and other cases. We see from today's Quorum that some La Presse journalists are being challenged in this very area. I cannot get into the details of the case, nor will I, because it is being debated now, but I will just point to the fact that this is an ongoing concern. Certainly it does not just affect journalists like Juliet O'Neill, but at present also some journalists at La Presse.

It means that this sequence of events where the judge must follow the laid-out criteria is what has been missing. Again, if there are other facets that need to be dealt with at committee, then so be it.

Proposed subsection 39.1(7) regarding disclosure states:

A journalist is required to disclose information or a record that has not been published only if the information or record is of vital importance and cannot be produced in evidence by any other means.

That is another important facet that had not been addressed. When we move on to proposed subsection 39.1(8) about search warrants, that certainly was a cause of concern before. It deals with the Criminal Code and talks about the criteria and the further clarity required.

In essence, the bill is trying to fine-tune the debate we have had since freedom of the press has existed, and that is the time honoured tradition of those who are in the fourth estate being able to practise their trade on the one hand and on the other hand to make sure that if there are issues of national security, they have worthy protection, as well.

Because of the times in which we are living, it is of absolute critical importance that a balance be struck, and that the clarity that is needed for judges be provided. I say that because of some other considerations we will have before the House, in particular, Bill C-3, which was tabled today.

We have had concerns about how we deal with border security, as recently as yesterday when a retired colonel from the American military was not allowed into our country because of being on an FBI watch list.

Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are critical in the atmosphere in which we are living. They are the foundation of our democracy. If we are not able to find the balance now, we will regret it later. If journalists are not able to protect their sources, we know what will happen. We have seen it around the world and in history. People will no longer come forward. It would not only affect members of Parliament in not being able to find critical analysis because information would not be shared, but citizens in general would not have the information they need to hold institutions to account.

I will end my comments with the plea that we need to follow up on this bill quickly. We need to support it in a non-partisan fashion because it is so important that all those in the business of journalism be able to practise their profession without any fear.

We hope that the government will come forward on one other aspect that needs tweaking, and that is on freedom of information. The government promised after the passing of Bill C-2, the accountability act, that it would act on that. It is one thing to protect sources, but it is another thing to have access and a window to the business that government does.

While we need speedy passage of this bill, which is something we support, we also look forward to and hope that the government will fulfill its promise to bring forward changes to the freedom of information act. Until that time, we know that it will be difficult for journalists not only to ply their trade, but to have a clear window on what government is doing.

[ALS Society of Ontario, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday. the Peloso family in my riding of Ottawa Centre will organizing the sixth annual fundraiser and awareness night in support of the ALS Society of Ontario. ALS is a fatal disease commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease.

Many Canadians and their families have suffered from the consequences of ALS but they stay strong because of the support of their families and their communities.

The Peloso family had only six weeks to say goodbye to their beloved father from the time when he was diagnosed to the time when he passed away. At the time there was little public awareness of ALS and virtually no community support.

However, the family turned the tragedy into positive energy. They came together to raise awareness, build community and, to date, have raised over $73,000 in support of the ALS Society of Ontario.

On behalf of the residents of Ottawa Centre, I congratulate the Peloso family and the organizers of this event for their hard work.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while my friend claimed to be talking about new investments in the north, this is extremely new information in terms of what has actually been laid out and paid out.

That brings me to the question of what is happening in our cities. In the Speech from the Throne, cities were entirely ignored. In fact, we have infrastructure falling apart. Bridges are falling down in Montreal. In the capital here, we have infrastructure needs. What is the government doing? It is turning around and selling off buildings so it can hand over money to the private sector.

My question to my friend here is this. Where are the investments for everyday Canadians and why is the government not investing the $14 billion of the surplus in our infrastructure?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the comments my colleague from the other side has made. I agree that the Speech from the Throne is lacking in support for everyday people. In fact, I also believe the throne speech is taking Canada in the wrong direction.

He has enunciated many points about what is lacking and, as I said, I could not agree with him more. Why then would the Liberals consider supporting the throne speech by acquiescing and sitting on their hands? Since they still have some time for reconsideration, will he encourage his leader to stand up with our party and vote against the Speech from the Throne?

[Public Service, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, every day Canadians are being squeezed when it comes to family time, and Statistics Canada confirms this. Canadian workers spend 45 fewer minutes with their families each work day than they did 20 years ago.

Ontario recently announced a family holiday in February, but the Conservative government has decided to exclude federal employees from this much deserved holiday. Clearly, this is unfair.

Will the government reverse its decision so federal employees can honour the same kinds of commitments that they want to with their families and be able to spend family time together? Will that family guy over there allow federal employees the same rights as the other families in Ontario?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister's comments. I am not sure if I missed it through translation but he might want to look at who the President of Haiti is at this point. I think he might have made an error.

However, I will get into the substance of his comments. It is interesting that we have a government now that is looking at free trade with the Americas. At the very same time that we are entering into free trade with the Americas we have human rights abuses going on in Colombia. To the extent that, and I am not sure whether the minister is aware of this, the American Congress has suspended free trade talks with the government of Colombia. Why? Because of the human rights abuses going on.

I would like the minister to explain to the House and to Canadians why it is that human rights are going to be trumped by profit-gaining from corporations both here in Canada and by corporations around the world. Why is it that the government claims to be supporting human rights abroad, yet we see trade deals that will be going on which undermine human rights?

[Aung San Suu Kyi, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is pleased to enthusiastically support the motion.

The NDP will be pleased to support this motion.

None of us are indifferent to the images we have seen the past few weeks from Burma. In one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, Burmese monks had the courage to defy the authorities. They led the ordinary people of Burma, in peaceful demonstrations, to demand that generals step aside and allow the democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, to take her rightful place. The brutal military junta responded by arresting and killing those brave, heroic monks and their followers.

Throughout almost two decades, Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy have been denied their election victory. This outright affront to democracy should have been dealt with long ago. The world has been too silent on the flagrant violations of human rights suffered by the Burmese people. We have shied away from tough action that can make the difference in a country like Burma. Forced labour, torture, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, denial of freedom of expression and association are a daily reality for the people of Burma.

Aung San Suu Kyi is the rightful leader of the democratically led government of Burma, a democratically led government yet to be recognized by the military junta. She has often called on the international community to “use your liberty to promote ours”.

Today we have a chance to do just that. To truly honour Aung San Suu Kyi we must support her efforts in bringing democracy to Burma. She called upon the international community to put pressure on the junta by withdrawing western investment from her country. She has argued that the presence of western investment in Burma provides both financial and moral support for the junta. As she said, “Western companies give the regime a chance to say: “Look: even companies from Western democracies support us”.

At a press conference on October 3, I declared that Canadian companies and public pension funds investing in Burma had been complicit in propping up the military regime and that the Canadian government must do more to stop this complicity.

New Democrats fully expect Canadian companies operating throughout the world to hold themselves to the highest standards of corporate social responsibility. The Canadian government cannot speak out for human rights in places like Burma and then allow Canadian companies to undermine these efforts by cooperating and legitimizing the regimes responsible for violating human rights in the first place. That is why we have heeded the call from Aung San Suu Kyi and demanded a carefully targeted divestment campaign to increase the pressure on the junta.

I remind the House of another person who had the honour of Canadian citizenship bestowed upon him, Nelson Mandela. When Mr. Mandela was in prison, Canada took leadership by ensuring all Canadian companies divested from the brutal apartheid regime of South Africa. That was the beginning of the end of apartheid. To truly honour Aung San Suu Kyi's fight for democracy and human rights we need the same leadership today.

Once again, the NDP caucus supports this motion. Her words echo in this chamber today, “use your liberty to promote ours”. Let us heed her call.

[Kelly Morrisseau, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Kelly Morrisseau was 27 years old and seven months pregnant when she was stabbed and left to die near an Ottawa area park. This tragic death is yet another example of the violence and death faced by aboriginal women in Canada.

Tomorrow is National Aboriginal Day and we are reminded that not only have we failed Kelly, but we have failed a generation of young aboriginal people.

Since the federal government instituted a 2% funding cap in 1996, the number of aboriginal youths in higher education has fallen by 9%. The government must rescind this cap.

We must show that as parliamentarians our response is not more hollow words and more hollow promises. Let us start today by first helping to give hope and opportunity to the three children Kelly Morrisseau left behind. I invite all members to join me and the NDP caucus in making a donation to the Kelly Morrisseau fund.

Together, let us start investing in a better future for all aboriginal children.

[Aeronautics Act, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that there are a hundred vacancies right now for the positions that Canadians entrust for oversight inspectors.

Instead of the government put its time and money into a flawed bill, it should be getting out and putting the word out that it needs people in these positions. It makes sense. Why does the government not hire the hundred new inspectors?

It is the same with rail safety. I have no idea and I cannot fathom why the government is so focused on selling out privacy, freedom of information, whistleblower protection and in the end the safety of Canadians, and not spending more time hiring the hundred inspectors that we need to make sure that our skies are safe.