Paul Dewar

[Afghanistan, November 20th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' enemy list now includes Amnesty International, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and, get this, the U.S. State Department.

Mr. Colvin was not the only diplomat who saw evidence of torture. Nicholas Gosselin saw evidence that a detainee was beaten with electrical wires and a rubber hose.

Is the government suggesting that Mr. Gosselin was also in league with the Taliban? Will the government finally help Canadians sort out this truth and fiction story, get to the facts and call a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, November 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, torture is a violation of international law, period, but when reports of prisoner torture were sent to the government, instead of investigating, it launched a massive cover-up.

The Conservatives have threatened diplomats, interfered with hearings, smeared the reputation of their own sources and even misled the House when they said yesterday, ”There has never been a single, solitary proven allegation”.

Will the government finally stop the cover-up, do the responsible thing and hold a public inquiry?

[Government Appointments, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, appointments should be based on merit and not partisanship. Look at the board of Rights and Democracy. The Tories are turning this into the board of Conservative cronyism.

Earlier the government indicated its intention to appoint Irene MacLeod to the board. According to her resume, she has no past experience in the field, but she is a loyal Conservative partisan. The latest offering is Michael Van Pelt, another individual whose resume indicates no background in the field, but he has been a donor to the provincial Conservative Party.

When will the government stop the assault on democracy and institute merit-based appointments?

[Criminal Code, November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my comments by thanking the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for raising this important issue.

As the previous speaker has mentioned, we have a case here where there are provisions within the Criminal Code, but as we have seen, technologies change. We have also seen the need to adapt our laws to conform to the changes we have seen in technologies.

I think that what we see here is an attempt to address clearly what is an area in the law where we need to buttress the law to acknowledge that there are changes within our society that have to do with technological advances that have affected our social outcomes.

I am going to spend some time commenting on someone who has already been mentioned by the previous speaker and who is the motivating factor for this law. The person who I will be referring to is Nadia Kajouji. Sadly, Nadia took her life at the young age of 18. She was a person who was attending Carleton University, which is in my riding. Her case seized this community.

When she went missing, many of us were seized with the fact that she had not been found. There was a search for her. People searched for her for about 40 days. This involved, of course, her parents and family. What we found was her body. It washed up on the shores of the Rideau River, in fact, just a block from where I live.

If we go to the end of Clegg Street in old Ottawa East, not far from here, and go to where the street and river meet, today we can see a memorial to Nadia. It is a memorial that people have gone to, friends and family, to write personal notes and reflections about Nadia, about their love for Nadia ,and their concerns about her life being taken too early.

Nadia's case and her situation was one which I think we should all pay attention to. Nadia was 18 years old. She was a young university student. She was deeply isolated, not to mention the fact that she had issues of depression. She was deeply isolated in a context where she was surrounded by people, but she was not able to have people around her that she felt comfortable with and trusted to reach out to at the time.

What this motion is trying to address is how people who are vulnerable can be protected from people who are manipulative. What we found, after her body was found, was that Nadia had committed suicide. However, she had been counselled to do so by someone who was pretending to be a nurse, a woman, online, who had counselled Nadia to take her life.

After the investigation ensued, it was learned that the person who was supposedly a woman nurse online turned out to be an impostor, and he was a male. He had taken advantage of Nadia's vulnerability, and it was not the first time.

From the testimonies we have been able to read, and there have been media reports, Nadia had gone through a lot. She was depressed, as I mentioned. She had some really difficult issues. She had not been able to find the resources and support that someone at her age with her needs was in need of, but she did reach out, as many young people do, online to find some help, some support.

Sadly, she found it in someone who was manipulative and had something else in mind, and ultimately it cost her her life.

The approach of the motion is to acknowledge the fact that these are real issues that are affecting people. We know that many young people are deeply isolated, and that the only way they seem able to relate or to find support is through that virtual world that has been constructed. We also note that many people use that forum, that medium, to manipulate.

Throughout Nadia's struggle with her depression, it should also be noted that it was difficult for her family to know. There are other issues around her case that need to be dealt with as well, and having talked to Nadia's brother Mark, there is more to be done particularly for young people on university campuses who find themselves away from home, young, isolated and troubled by many different issues.

It was clear that when Nadia was trying to reach out, the use of the Internet and reaching out to people who are not connected to her directly is something that we need to understand a little better.

The person who is alleged to have instructed her to take her life, it was noted, was known to have done this before. The gentleman is 47 years old. He was presenting himself as Cami D online. He was posing as a young woman. He formed a suicide pact with Nadia. Allegedly this happened before with this particular person.

There was a disciplinary record of this person as a nurse. Notwithstanding that, this person was allowed to continue practising nursing in Minnesota for more than a decade and a half after being disciplined. It was also alleged that this person was abusing patients. There was clearly a pattern here and there was much concern around those with whom he had contact about his stability. This person clearly had a record. Unfortunately, he ended up being the person with whom Nadia ended up connecting.

This is a complex issue. We need to understand better how technologies are being used, who is using them, and to what end. We will see here an attempt to try to update the Criminal Code.

In the case of Nadia, this particular person has not been charged. I do not know how Nadia's family is coping with that. I know that they are strong. I know that they are working together and supporting each other, but if a parent had evidence that someone counselled his or her daughter to take her life and that there were no consequences for that person, having had a pattern of doing this before, that parent would want to see something done.

As I have mentioned, I have talked with the family and I have talked to Mark. He is not interested in vengeance. He is not interested in revenge. However, he is interested in justice and he is interested in making sure that Nadia's life was not in vain. I think the House and this Parliament can deal with part of that equation. We should look at what happened, vis-à-vis Nadia's life, the taking of her life, and how it ended up that way. We should take a look at the Criminal Code, how it relates to technology, and how it relates to people who are counselling others to take their lives.

I will finish by saying that it is in those of us who are left to carry on life that we must remember those who have passed, and it is in seeking justice that those who have been laid to rest will be able to rest in peace. I hope that we see fit to make amendments to the Criminal Code to make sure that happens for Nadia and her family.

[Support Measures for Adoptive Parents, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Motion No. 386, a motion calling for the human resources committee to study the support measures available to adoptive parents and their children.

I, like many of my colleagues, have been touched by people who have dealt with the issue of adopting children. It is something that as parents and family members we all hold in trust. My grandmother, who I never had the pleasure of meeting because she passed away before I was born, told my mother, when she was raising us, that “children are not yours as property; they're yours to be entrusted”. It is important for us to note that when we become parents, be it through adoption or biologically, our children are human beings who have been entrusted to us for care and we should do everything we can to support them.

I am glad to see this motion. I would like to see it gain some strength and see some policies that we could adopt and pursue. I would have preferred the government to have provided us with some improvements to the system so that adoptive parents could see real results from this Parliament to support them.

However, this motion is a first step and, of course, we in the NDP will support it with the hope of getting more concrete improvements to the system as we go forward.

Constituents of mine have approached me regarding the unfair maternity leave provisions provided to adoptive parents. Susan Yungblut, on behalf of a group of adoptive parents, approached me on this issue and she outlined the problems with the EI benefits.

Currently, 35 weeks of EI benefits for parental leave are accessible to both birth and adoptive parents, and the member from Essex outlined that. The problem, however, is that the 15 weeks designated to the maternity benefit plan are not available to those who become parents through adoption rather than through birth. For Susan, as for many others, this is an issue of equity, and I share her concern.

Adoptive families pay into the EI fund at equivalent rates to birth families. Due to differential treatment in federal legislation, many Canadian employers provide differential salary top up benefits to birth and adoptive parents. However, birth parents and adoptive parents share the same emotional, social and psychological challenges when a child comes into their home. They are entrusted with the care and nurturing of that child that is so important in the early years, regardless of whether that child is a biological child or an adopted child.

The financial costs of adoption, as we heard, are significant, and the lack of an adoption benefit from both government and employers puts adoption out of reach for many families.

I did follow-up my meeting with Ms. Yungblut with a letter to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on this subject and asked whether the government would consider the creation of an EI benefit plan for adoptive families that would be financially equivalent to that which is offered to biological parents in the EI maternity benefit plan.

Unfortunately, the response I received was not quite favourable. The minister argued that the difference in treating biological versus adoptive mothers is embedded in the psychological demands of pregnancy and childbirth. Many of the adoptive mothers I talked to experienced the psychological demands of pregnancy and had similar needs. The letter was contrary to that experience of many adoptive parents.

According to the minister's point of view, for now, many biological mothers have experienced the psychological demands of pregnancy and also had the tragic experience and possibility of losing a child.

Surely, the emotional suffering of such an experience should be taken into account as we discuss these matters, and there should be acknowledgement. However, no prejudice should be placed upon one group of mothers over another when it comes to that particular leave component in the EI maternity benefit.

Today in the House, we have heard about issues that require action. I would hope a very simple one, this inequity within the maternity benefit system, will be examined at committee and action will be taken on it so there will be equity. I believe this is a positive step. What we have heard today from all members is that there is a willingness to find ways to support adoptive parents.

Personally, having an adopted sister and family members who are presently in the process of adopting, I am keenly aware of the importance of ensuring that adopted children have a sense of belonging, that they feel no different from any of the other members of the family or society. This is particularly acute when children are leaving the family to enter schools. There are things that can be done to bring teachers to understand the uniqueness of adopted children and to make sure when they go through school that their issues are understood so that there is no prejudice, perceived or otherwise, as these children are brought up through the school system.

When it comes to adopted children, we have made a lot of headway, but when we look at the issues in front of people as they look to become adoptive parents and the issues they have after they adopt, there is clearly a lot more to be done. I am glad to support the motion. I look forward to the concrete solutions that come out of the committee and look forward to the government pursuing some of the solutions. From this side of the House there will be support, not only for the motion, but for anything we can do to support adoptive parents, and also of course the children who are entrusted to them.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not find any disagreement in the comments of the member for Toronto Centre with my concerns about the bill.

Does he believe that if the concerns with the bill he has enumerated are not changed, it will really be possible to support the bill? I am talking about the list. There are some other things that need to be addressed, but I am of the opinion that the list has to go, and that is obviously at the front and centre of the concerns many have mentioned. However, if we cannot change it, is he of the opinion, as I am, that this is something that we probably could not support unless amendments were made to take that out of the bill?

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the point my colleague is making is that this is not a one dimensional process. When we involve other actors by design, we bring in other possibilities and responses. As an executive in cabinet writing a list comes with some expense. We could say that is no problem, that we are principled and we are going to ensure that we follow our principles. However, what is the objective? If the objective is to address and redress victims of terrorism and by listing countries we actually cut off the victims' ability to have that redress, then we need to acknowledge that. I think that is what has been experienced in the United States and we would be wise to learn that lesson.

When we look at international law, at what is happening with the ICC and we look at the ability for grievances to be dealt with in a multilateral world, a lot of emphasis should be put on not listing countries for purposes that we see here by cabinet. If we really want to get at grievances at an international level and have our government play there and push international justice, then we need to strengthen support for institutions like the ICC. We need to ensure that we not only deal with terrorism and torture and other crimes against humanity, but that we are also in the business of preventing them. I could give longer than a two-hour speech on that subject, but I will not do that. Many would like to see some support for prevention of these things before they happen and we have not seen enough of that from the government, quite frankly.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out in some detail the concerns of the list. I still have concerns about what the consequences of the list would be, but more profoundly, I have grave concerns about the intent of this bill as it was put together by the government.

The Conservatives have the full capacity of government to study legislation, to make sure the legislation works. For instance, there are constitutional questions that can be raised with this bill in terms of jurisdiction, and the responsibilities and roles of the executive branch, the courts, et cetera. I find it strange that the government would bring forward a bill with lofty objectives, and I think 100% of the House agrees with the objectives, in such a manner that it is restrictive and could actually undermine the objectives. The evidence is south of the border. They basically have said, “Do not go there. Do not put the list together because you will corner yourselves”.

In terms of natural, fair justice, if we are going to limit citizens as to where they can bring forward their grievances, then we are not being fully democratic in the application of law. When we get to choose from a list of countries, what happens when citizens have been affected by countries that are not on the list? What will happen with that? What challenges will go to our Supreme Court?

We should think of the resources as well. When these things are done, they come with costs with respect to time and money. At the end of the day, if we put forward legislation that ends up having no efficacy and no redress yet uses a lot of resources, we will undermine the whole principle.

As my colleague and I said, it is an experience the Americans have had in the United States, not just for one, two or three years, but for a decade, and they have said to stay away from that part, and do not list because it will undermine our objectives.

I say to the government to listen carefully to everyone. We will see that at committee. The government should not be stubborn about this. This is too important. If the government is stubborn and ideological about it, then I do not think this bill will pass and the whole idea, concept and principle will be put aside, which would be a shame.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

That is the whole problem, Mr. Speaker. It is not about creating concerns about countries that do or do not exist on a list. It is the whole idea of the list. The member can conjure up in his own mind the kind of retaliatory action. I am not identifying countries; I am identifying problems in policy.

I am not alone in this. The jurisdiction south of the border that has had concerns about this has said this is a problem and that we do not want to go there. Canadian experts from the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs here in Ottawa have said that this is not the way to go because it could affect our diplomatic affairs and undermine our objectives in diplomacy and multilateral relations in a multipolar world.

This is not about which country and what response. This is about the policy itself undermining the objectives that we are all trying to achieve.

[Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35.

We have heard interventions from the government, the Liberal Party and the Bloc. There seems to be consensus on some of the concerns that many of us have when it comes to Bill C-35, which I will get to.

There is a consensus also on the need to deal with the issue and the objective that the government has laid out and that we need to do something to address the grievances of victims due to terrorism. The question is not whether we should deal with that objective. It is how we deal with that objective.

The principle behind the bill is important. I think all parties want to find ways of addressing the concerns of victims, of what is political violence often.

New Democrats have always taken a strong stand against perpetrators of terror, torture and human rights abuses. For that reason, we will support sending the bill to committee for further study, and I will explain some of the rationale behind that.

At this point, we are not convinced the bill will achieve its stated purpose of preventing, and was mentioned by the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for Americas when he tabled the bill, and deterring terrorism.

What will the proposed bill do? Bill C-35 has three primary components. First, it creates a cause of action that allows victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities in Canadian courts for loss or damage suffered as a result of terrorist acts as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, it amends the State Immunity Act to remove state immunity for states on the list of countries established by cabinet and that have supported or currently support terrorism. Finally, it allows victims to sue foreign states that are on the list.

The bill takes significant steps, but we need to take a measured look at it. That is why it is important for it to be examined at committee.

I will enumerate some of our concerns.

First, will the amending of the State Immunity Act cause retaliation against Canadians and within that what are the risks?

Second, why is the government limiting the cause of action to a certain list of states, not leaving the matter open to courts decisions? That was echoed by my colleagues on this side of the House.

Third, is there merit in extending the cause of action created by the bill to victims of other forms of state violations of human rights such as torture and if not in this bill, what are the plans of the government to deal with that?

I do not have to enumerate the numbers of cases of Canadians who have suffered torture through other state actors. We believe that should be dealt with immediately.

Let us begin with the first point. There are serious concerns with the concept of amending the State Immunity Act. Would it open the door to frivolous suits launched in questionable jurisdictions that would adversely impact Canadians? It is simply a question and one that needs to be answered. Within diplomatic circles, this has been questioned.

I will reference Fen Hampson, the director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Carleton University, in Ottawa, which is one of the most pre-eminent schools of diplomacy. In reference to the bill, when asked, “Does it interfere with possible foreign policy goals?“, he said:

Absolutely...Securing the release of a journalist or someone else who has been thrown into jail, something like this can complicate relations. It doesn't ease them....In effect, you are putting your diplomacy in a straight jacket.

Another commentary on the bill has said a similar thing. René Pronovost, an international law expert at McGill University in Montreal, echoed Mr. Hampson when he said, “The bill invites retaliation by other governments”.

We need to take these comments and points of view seriously. We cannot just brush them aside.

It is important to note, when we look at the world, particularly after 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, that we live in a much more multilateral, multi-polar world. Therefore, our good intentions at home should not limit our abilities for seeking resolutions to problems abroad. That is why these comments have been made.

In the area of unintended consequences, a bill that we pass, which might suit our needs domestically for very good reasons and for lofty goals, could actually harm us when we look at dealing with other actors, multilaterally. We should be sure that whatever do at home with the intention of deterring terrorism actually helps us deter terrorism.

I think it is strange that the only exception to state immunity as it exists now, and the government is certainly aware of this, is in financial cases. There are provisions. It is important the committee and Parliament be seized with a study and debate on whether we should end immunity against violence in its different forms. Notwithstanding the scope of the bill and the opportunities to go further, this is a time to open up that issue.

In other words, when it comes to the act itself, where there are state immunity exceptions in financial cases and the government proposes we change it to address terrorism, it would also be an opportunity, if we are unable to amend and extend this bill, to at least open up some opportunities for debate and proposition to follow up with other exemptions from state immunity. I am certain many of us would like to see that for those who are victims of torture. We can do this in committee. We can look at the problems in the bill. It is a discussion to which that I look forward.

The second concern I have is the list. I made a point of it in my intervention when I was questioning the minister of state. We heard from the Liberal intervenor on this, which is a concern shared by the Bloc as well. With the contemplation of this list, the bill would create a cause for court action, and the Criminal Code defines what the action is. Why would the cause of action as contemplated in the bill and amending the state immunity provisions only be subject to certain states and not others? This is core to the concerns the NDP has with the bill.

We have heard from others in the debate today that with the government confining the court actions to a list of countries, it is undermining the intent and objectives we all want. When we put that tool in the hands of the executive, the cabinet, to deal with it exclusively, we run into what I call a faulty flaw in legislation, a faulty flaw that strangely undermines the whole idea of what we want to deal with. Legislation is put forward and contemplated to deal with problems. One must look at the full scope of what the legislation does and not in isolation.

When a list is put together, one has to be very careful as to who it will affect. By design, there is a group of countries that are not being included. The government says that we should not worry, that it has a review on a bi-annual basis. Things happen quickly in this multi-polar world. This does not allow for a quick response. The government says that if there is an emergency, it can change that. The point is not only who is on the list, it is the fact that the list exists.

We have heard from those who have had experience with this in the United States. They have said that this is a problem. They have advised us not to go down that path. I find it strange that we would take on the worst aspect of that policy framework from the U.S., after it has been tried, critiqued and suggestions made not to do it, and put it in our legislation.

When I asked the Minister of State for his feedback on that, he believed this was the way to go. He did not provide a rationale and he certainly did not provide a response to the question put forward that if this did not work in the states, why do it here.

It is really important therefore that we are non-supportive of politicizing our courts or giving cabinet the authority to say which cases the courts must take on and which ones they must refuse. The government is doing that with the list. If the actions of one state are cause for legal action, the equivalent actions of another state should be cause for similar action. There should be no preferential treatment for any state if we are to be genuine about it. It is up to the legal system, really, to look at the merits of every case and decide whether action can be taken. It is a really important tenet of our system, that the courts are able to do this. As my colleagues from other parties have stated, and the member for Mount Royal said it best, the list is a tool of politicization, which undermines the stated goal of the bill.

Finally, if through the studies at committee it became clear that the approach in the bill did not deter state violence in the form of terrorism, then we wish to examine whether similar action should be expanded to include other forms of illegal state violence, such as torture or gross violations of human rights. If we were able to open that up, we would hope that, if not in this bill, the government would come forward with opportunities to have legislation that would amend the State Immunity Act to deal with those areas.

We just celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Canadian Centre for International Justice has said on numerous occasions that the declaration was an amazing achievement and that we should all be proud of the Canadian content of that declaration. However, there is an ongoing need for a greater commitment to the prevention of mass atrocities such as genocide and crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes. We need to have a goal in the 21st century that the enormous advances in international justice will be ones that prove to be strong deterrents to the commission of such atrocities and contribute to the prevention of conflict more broadly.

The ICC is at the forefront of this system. It is the first permanent criminal court able to try individuals for serious violations of international law. It has its challenges, no question, but Canada was a party to the treaty establishing that court, and we have agreed to try alleged war crimes and human rights abusers in Canada. We just had evidence of that recently in Montreal.

Torture treatment experts estimate that 25% to 30% of refugees and immigrants living in countries like Canada have experienced torture with war trauma. The Government of Canada figures suggest that there are hundreds of alleged war criminals and human rights abusers currently in Canada, and often survivors of atrocities express their desire to seek justice served for the harm they have suffered. Justice can play an important role, no question, in the healing process, helping to address some of the emotional and psychological challenges faced by survivors.

With regard to the stated purpose of the bill, we agree with exploring the option at the committee level and deciding whether it should apply to victims of terrorism as well as other forms of state violation of human rights and international law. If we are to accept the amendments to the State Immunity Act and we want to do the whole thing, we need to open it up to other facets.

We should ensure that foreign government officials and their agents implicated in torture and other atrocities are tried in Canadian courts. Canada's State Immunity Act has created a barrier to such cases in Canada, leading to a statement of the UN committee against torture that this is an improper interpretation of obligations under the torture convention. Cases in civil courts are an important complement to a strong criminal law system, providing an alternative forum for cases, and allowing for the possibility of compensation and other forms of redress.

We support the initiatives that would redress the harm done to victims and would deter the future state sponsorship of violations of human rights, but we are not convinced that the bill in its present form is really the way to go or that all the unintended implications that I have mentioned have been thought through thoroughly.

We have serious concerns about cabinet's interference with justice in the form of creating a list of states which would face court action in Canada to the exclusion of other states.

We also wish to explore whether or not these measures would deter other forms of illegal state violence and violations of human rights, and if not in this bill, as I said, that is fine if that is the committee's conclusion in dealing with the area of torture. If it is not included in this bill, then we would like to see some commitment by this Parliament to legislation that would amend the State Immunity Act to deal with that. It is far too important to wait another year or two.

Notwithstanding these concerns about the bill, and given our commitment to giving victims of human rights violations an opportunity to seek justice and to make sure that justice is done, we will join with others and support sending this bill to committee where we will take a look at it and hear from others.

The government does not really understand the unintended consequences when it comes to our diplomacy abroad. We need to hear from experts, from people in the field. We need to hear from those in the United States who have pleaded with us to stay away from the list in this bill.

I started off my comments by saying that I think there is a shared objective here and that is to deal with those who have been victimized by terrorism. Everyone agrees that is something to address and redress. If we do not do it properly, then certain members of Parliament will have a difficult time supporting it, and I would align myself with them. If we do not get it right, we could be in the unfortunate position of having brought forward a law that undermines the actual objective we are trying to achieve.