Raymonde Folco

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech just now I touched on a number of items that I believe protect the individual.

The first is that the peace officers must prove to the judge that attempts have been made to obtain the information referred to by other reasonable and legal means. Second, the fact that the individual has the right to retain counsel at the investigative hearing, strikes me as being the basis of our entire justice system. Third, there is the annual report to Parliament, not only by the Minister of Public Safety but also by the Attorney General. I do not want to revisit all those points, but I would like to add one thing.

If the bill is passed by Parliament, it will then be referred to a committee. I assume my colleague sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and that is precisely where we expect to hear his suggestions for improvements to the bill. That is what I propose to him very seriously.

The bill is far from perfection and we need all the support and intelligent contributions of hon. members in order to improve it in committee. I know that, with all his experience, the hon. member is fully capable of contributing to this process.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I laid out the chronology since 2007 was precisely to try to show what we have been through in the Liberal Party and to illustrate the relationship between Bill C-3, Bill S-3, which came from the other chamber, and Bill C-19. That is the jargon we parliamentarians use.

In other words, we had a bill in the other chamber, Bill S-3, which introduced some provisions that were extremely important, I would even say fundamental. Unfortunately, for all sorts of parliamentary reasons, Bill S-3 could not be brought forward in this chamber and so the government decided to reintroduce Bill S-3 in the form of what we are now calling Bill C-19.

If Bill C-19 reiterates the elements of Bill S-3, as I really have the impression it does, those being safeguards and protections for individual freedom, then I will have no problem supporting Bill C-19.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to terrorism there are no guarantees. If there were guarantees, we would not have gone through what we have both in Canada, the United States and England and elsewhere in other countries, including France. There are no guarantees.

What we can and must do, and this is our responsibility as parliamentarians, is try to put the most effective possible obstacles in the path of people who might organize a crime like terrorism.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

The Liberal Party of Canada supports this bill, in principle. I say that because this bill has a history linked with September 11, 2001.

Governments the world over were charged with establishing anti-terrorism legislation to protect their countries in the event of an attack on their security and safety.

The security and safety we took for granted no longer exist. In today's world, rapid travel, changes in values and attitudes and strained international relations have become an unavoidable fact.

Many members no doubt recall that Canada approved initial anti-terrorism legislation in December 2001, because of a sunset clause that entitled Parliament to review the legislation after five years. Members were concerned and rightly so at seeing fear make a mockery of Canadians' fundamental rights, especially those of cultural communities and, in particular, let it be said, of individuals identified as being from the middle east or the near east.

Even though Parliament improved the legislation, what remained was the criminalizing of peaceful activities and the possibility of unfair trials.

Today we have witnessed the ongoing challenges faced by Mohamed Harkat, a refugee from Algeria, released from jail in 2006 after spending three and a half years incarcerated without a trial. He is accused of having ties to terrorist organizations. Very recently, at the end of May, 16 officers carried out a search of his home in the south end of Ottawa, accompanied by three sniffer dogs trained to find weapons, explosives and money, all because they wanted to know if he was complying with the terms of his release.

Here is a man, and he is not the only one in Canada, detained without trial, whose human rights have been consistently violated in the name of safety and security. This is unfortunately not the only case of this kind in Canada.

Further, the Federal Court later ruled that Canadian border agents were “the most intrusive”. According to Justice Simon Noel, “fairness has to prevail”. He felt the agents had gone too far in seizing items such as family photos. The ruling also called into the question the performance of CSIS, the fact that its informant was not trustworthy. Therefore, the information that put Harkat behind bars could be false. It is information that the government, including the Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, has been using to deport this family man.

The question was raised by Justice Noel, who presided over the case and who is apparently known as one of Canada's most respected and experienced judges in terror cases, that CSIS also could have deliberately withheld information that could have cleared this man's name.

Are these the values on which Canada now stands, ones of unfairness and inequality, the inability to have the opportunity to be proven innocent by a jury of one's peers? Surely there is another way to do that. Let us tell individuals like Harkat and Adil Charkaoui, a schoolteacher from Montreal, that these are not the pillars, values and principles upon which Canada has built a strong democracy before the Conservative government came into power.

Allow me to recall the facts pertaining to Bill C-19. First, the provision of the Criminal Code pertaining to investigative hearings allows authorities to require an individual to testify without giving them the right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that the responses might be self-incriminating. The aim of this provision is to compel those involved secondarily in a terrorist plot, who might have vital information, to testify instead of the prime suspects, who are prone to lie in order to protect themselves.

The second provision of the Criminal Code concerns preventive arrests. It allows the police to arrest and detain an individual, in some cases without a warrant, on the condition that they have reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest would prevent the commission of new terrorist acts.

A number of points must be remembered as regards the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. First, my party takes very seriously the safety of Canadians and the protection of their rights. Next, as in all cases of legislation concerning national security, we think a balance must be struck between public safety and individual freedoms. We obviously welcome the government's decision to include security safeguards, proposed by the special committees of the Senate and the House of Commons, which had studied the matter. That has already been mentioned by others before me. These precautions improve the bill and help calm the concerns over individual freedoms we raised when previous versions of this text were studied.

Bill C-19 hearkens back to another bill introduced previously in the other place as Bill S-3. That bill was discussed in a committee of the other place, and dealt with investigative hearings and preventive arrest. This text was introduced in 2007 and then reintroduced with some additional safeguards. Considerable work has already been done on this bill. The 2007 revision required police officers to prove to the judge that they had used all other methods to obtain the needed information.

It also required the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to make an annual report to Parliament explaining their opinion on whether provisions should be extended. In October 2007, prorogation resulted in the bill, which had been referred to the other place, not getting back here to the House of Commons.

Bill S-3 included certain improvements worthy of mention. First, police officers must prove to the judge that all other reasonable and legal means have been used to obtain the information. Second, any person called to a investigative hearing has the right to retain counsel . Third, the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are required to make an annual report to Parliament justifying extension of the provisions. Fourth, any provincial court judge may hear arguments relating to preventive arrest. Fifth, the special anti-terrorist provisions may not be extended for more than five years unless both House of Parliament agree to extension.

The bill we are examining here in the House, Bill C-19, is identical overall to the version of Bill S-3 amended by the Senate, whose key provisions I have just reviewed.

I realize there will be very emotional points of view on the bill. I had to take a long time before I decided the pros and cons of the bill because it is very important to the population and our way of life in Canada as well.

There are groups who have historically been targeted by those who would deliberately wish to carry out terrorism acts against them. Protection and safety are important. If it means reducing the human rights of others, then we have to accept that.

What is good about the bill is that clause 2 adds new subsections to section 83.31 of the Criminal Code, which calls for separate annual reports on sections 83.28, 83.29 and 83.3 by the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The reports would include opinions and reasons on whether these sections should be extended within the act.

What is important is that the bill be sent to committee so it can be thoroughly reviewed and discussed in detail. I want to remind everyone in the House, and people who will be reading this debate, that this is not the end of the debate. If the bill is accepted by the members of the chamber, it will then go to committee. The members of the committee will amend the bill. The groups that are either for or against the implementation of these hearings will go before the committee to provide input and suggestions.

When it is referred to committee for consideration it can be amended, and I hope that the amendments will provide a better balance between collective security, which we all care about, and another thing we all care about too, individual freedom in Canada.

[Official Languages, June 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages stated that Canada is keeping its commitments to the Francophonie with respect to the use of French in the Olympic Winter Games. We have learned that often there is no French signage at airports and Olympic sites. The issue of French broadcasts of the games has not yet been resolved.

I will ask the minister my question again. Can he assure Canadians and French-speaking athletes from abroad that Canada will provide adequate services in their language at the Olympic Games?

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague put it so well that I am hesitant to repeat what he said, but he is absolutely right. Legitimate retailers are disappearing and the illegal trade is gaining strength. That is why I said at the end of my speech that when this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Health, we will have to make amendments that crack down on all contraband, particularly tobacco.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, we have to consider every step in the process that gets tobacco from the seed to a minor's lips. This is a big problem because the entire industry is going to have to disappear. Our country's political and psychological atmosphere discourages tobacco use. We have seen it, and members on both sides of the House have talked about it.

The tobacco industry is going out of style, much like how horses began to disappear as bicycles and cars became commonplace. People who raised horses found themselves in an industry, a trade that was no longer working for them. In my humble opinion, the tobacco industry is about to experience difficulties that will have an increasingly negative effect on both growers and cigarette manufacturers. We must not only consider the whole process; we must eliminate it.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised an important, yet sensitive question.

It is true that the Conservative government, the Government of Canada, has huge responsibilities with respect to this issue, since some of these criminal elements come from reserves. There is no denying it. That does not mean that the reserves are criminal, and I want to make that clear, but we all know that there are criminal elements here and there.

Thus, the Conservative government has the responsibility to eliminate these criminal elements that work on both sides of the border, on the American side and the Canadian side.

Now, if the Conservative government were more understanding and fair towards aboriginal communities across Canada, these communities would perhaps be in a better position themselves to fight these criminal elements in their own communities. These aboriginal communities see the problem, but they often have no way of tackling it.

[Tobacco Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act. Even though we on this side of the House support the legislation in principle, I am disturbed by its implications. Despite the government's assertions, the bill does nothing to protect the rights of the child, especially those children under 18 years of age.

I will like to quote from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that:

States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

The government is not upholding its obligations under that convention when, as my colleague from St. Paul's, Ontario point out yesterday in responding to a question, that rolling back the taxes increases the buying power of cigarettes for children, which is what the government has done. If we do not want children and youth to be a target of the tobacco industry, we must not decrease the taxes on cigarettes. What we have done with the decrease of taxes on tobacco has taken $12 billion out of the treasury.

I would like to say a few words about a phenomenon which has not, to my knowledge, been addressed sufficiently by my colleagues, although two or three of them have just spoken of it. I want to speak of the extent of the role of smuggling in the trade and sale of tobacco products.

The Canadian government's decision on smuggling is not the best one. The 1999 report by the World Bank makes the point that even when there is a considerable amount of contraband, higher taxes increase government revenues and reduce smoking. Price hikes encourage smokers to quit, stop others from starting, and reduce the number of former smokers who start up again.

It is also difficult to understand the statement by the Minister of National Revenue reported in the Gazette on April 2, 2009. According to him, the federal government has issued 14 permits to Quebec companies out of a total of 38 across Canada, or 37%. This is in marked contradiction with the stated objective of the government to protect children and youth from the tobacco industry's marketing tactics.

Moreover, 11 of these cigarette manufacturers are located on the Mohawk reserve, where organized crime seems to have infiltrated the tobacco industry. Clearly, contraband is a growth industry. I am not the only one who says so. Other members from other parties have talked about this. It seems to me that it is more prevalent in Quebec than in the other provinces, because the members from the other provinces have not talked about it.

It is estimated that 30% to 40% of the cigarettes sold in Quebec are contraband. The shortfall for the province is in the order of $300 million. Although the government clearly does not have the means at present to effectively monitor the industry and make sure that manufacturers comply with their licences, which would require them to collect taxes on what is sold, this bill will not prevent children and young people from being able to buy tobacco from the lucrative illegal industry. The bill is weak and ineffective, even though it prohibits the packaging, importation for sale, distribution and sale of little cigars and blunt wraps unless they are in a package that contains at least 20 little cigars or blunt wraps.

According to a letter I received from Casa Cubana/Spike Marks Inc. of Montreal dated May 26, 2009, it said: “The government's proposed ban will not in the least address minors' access to tobacco issues. As importantly, the government's proposal will come to further fuel the contraband trade in tobacco by providing exclusive market rights to these products to Native manufacturers and criminal groups”.

The illegal industry will find a way to circumvent the laws if the kind of public education demanded under article 42 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is to make the convention widely known to adults and children, is not carried out. Article 44.6 of the convention also requires Canada to make the reports on child rights widely available to the public and to have the public actively engage in children's rights.

For example, 71% of Canadians who participated in an Ipsos Reid study undertaken for Save the Children Canada in 2004, only five short years ago, gave Canada a C or lower in fulfilling its obligations to improve the lives of Canadian children. At the same time, only 33% of adults who were interviewed answered questions accurately when it came to Canadian children living with HIV, in poverty, with abuse or other social conditions as a result of the increasing marginalization of their parents.

The government has not only failed in its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to educate the public but it is also derelict in those obligations by failing to put in place the necessary legislative policies with effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to curb the lucrative contraband trade.

Here is what is fascinating about this entire approach. According to Luc Martial of Casa Cubana, he was surprised to learn during his meeting with Health Canada officials that the government had little or no actual relevant research on flavoured tobacco products, their market or the industry.

More precisely, Health Canada had no comprehensive understanding as to who exactly is consuming these products; what products are actually being consumed: little cigars or cigarillos, plain or flavoured and in what quantities and frequencies; where and how these products are actually being accessed, whether through friends, family, peers, legal channels or contraband; why consumers were beginning to access these products as opposed to other traditional cigars or cigarettes; and how the use of flavours actually impacts a consumer's decision to start or continue smoking. That seems to be an extremely important point, considering what other colleagues have said earlier.

I find all of that strange to understand because, according to the Canadian Cancer Society's website, findings from a 2006-07 youth smoking survey released on June 23, 2008, and funded by Health Canada, say:

--teenagers in Grades 10-12 use cigars and cigarillos the most. Thirty-five per cent said they had tried cigars, cigarillos and little cigars (39.5% were boys and 30% were girls), while 48% had tried cigarettes.

The Cancer Society's press release says:

Teenagers are very vulnerable to trying tobacco products. There is a risk that cigarillos, which can be just as addictive as cigarettes, could be a starter product for kids who would never start smoking.

The press release also says:

Cigarillos can be cheaper to buy than cigarettes because they come in smaller quantities and are easier to obtain because they are not regulated in the same way.

It would appear that the Conservative Minister of Health, even though she might fund surveys or, and I am giving her a lot of credit here, know what her own department's reports indicate, sales have grown in cigarillos over the last five years. There is obviously no plan in place to protect the most vulnerable. In 2001 about 50,000 cigarillos were sold and 80 million were sold in 2006. What an increase.

What a disaster for our youth. The Canadian Cancer Society also says that the steady decline in smoking observed in recent years among young Canadians aged 10 to 14, in grades 5 to 9, could very well have stopped.

The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of this government. The Conservatives' actions have led to an increase in the risk of mouth, throat, larynx, lung and esophagus cancer.

When will the government shoulder its responsibilities by putting policies and practices where they are really needed?

I support this bill even though it is weak and ineffective. I support it because I recommend referring this bill to committee so that the members can make the necessary amendments to it and turn it into a bill that really addresses the situation facing our young people.

[Taxation, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are off in dreamland again. They say the massive deficit is not at issue, but tell that to the millions of Canadians who know they will be left holding the bag for Conservative mismanagement.

Canadians are particularly incensed when they see the millions upon millions of dollars that the Conservative government is wasting on consultants, polling, advertising, and a bloated cabinet that it expanded after the recession had started.

But at least we now know how the Conservatives plan to pay for it. The Conservative leader revealed their plan is to raise taxes on Canadian families and businesses. This week, he announced in this House that he will not bring in a new budget “until we need to raise taxes”.

Canada was once a leader in the G8, but the Conservatives are trying to spend us into oblivion. Canadians do not need tax-and-spend Conservatives with their hands in the cookie jar.

In these times, only the Liberals will provide the steady leadership that will get Canada back on the right track.