Wayne Marston

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important bill. As I was preparing for this a short time ago in my office, I was giving thought to the fact that when Canadians send us here and we gather in the House, one of the most fundamental things Canadians expect of us is for us to protect their freedoms, to ensure their lives are lived out in safety and dignity.

We can understand to some extent, following 9/11 the reactions that came out of our neighbour to the south. It was certainly a significant attack with horrendous outcomes. The reaction in the early days was something perhaps today in hindsight might not have moved as far. I suspect that even in this place some members would be concerned about the movements that took place here.

Today in the House, during question period, we heard the Minister of Justice talk about the fact that he would not apply for clemency in the case of a Canadian on death row in the U.S. Even though we had a debate previously in the House on the issue, we decided that it was not the place of government to be a party to the killing of a citizen.

When we look back a little and think in terms of the life of the minority government, we see times and places where it has adopted positions or has refused to follow the will of the House, and I am very concerned about that. We can see an almost Hollywood western “hang 'em high” attitude.

I stress the fact that we do have a minority government and the place for action is in the House, but with the votes of every member in the House. When we look at Bill C-3, from the perspective of the NDP, the bill has major flaws in the sense that it is an attempt to tinker with the problem when the certificates were overruled by the Supreme Court. We do not believe the government has gone anywhere near what needs to be done to address the concern of the Supreme Court.

Many Canadians are concerned about the erosion of rights in Canada, as I alluded to before, in a fashion similar to the erosion of rights that has taken place in the United States. They see Bill C-3 as undermining the balance between being free and being secure.

Security certificates fail in two significant ways in our opinion. First, they allow for detention and deportation of those suspected of terrorist activity, but fail to ensure suspected terrorists are prosecuted and if found guilty jailed for their crimes. We have a Criminal Code that will take care of such matters.

As a result though, if we assume here is some form of terrorist activity in Canada, then to remove suspects, without due process in our courts, means simply we have no guarantee that the suspected terrorist removed from Canada under a security certificate will cease to be a threat.

There also is a fundamental inequity in the law when we consider that security certificates can only be used to detain and deport permanent residents and foreign nationals, but if Canadians are accused of terrorism, they will be arrested, charged and punished under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Part of the Criminal Code of Canada, the due process, is intended to protect the rights and security of Canadians. Part of that is the ability for Canadians to look the person in the eye, their accuser, to see the evidence against that person. To be quite clear, security certificates certainly lack the depth of due process that resides in the Criminal Code.

Security certificates also fail to provide justice and the opportunity to scrutinize the suspected behaviour, to determine at what risk are Canadians? What is the real risk? It has to be substantiated, proven and laid out in a court of law to ensure that the rights of people are protected.

We believe the Criminal Code is the right vehicle for the protection of our national security, while ensuring our rights are also protected at the same time. With Bill C-3, the government is leaving us with the impression that it is throwing band-aid onto the problem simply to address the Supreme Court ruling, to which I referred earlier. We have confirmation from experts that the new proposal will also be struck down yet again by another Supreme Court challenge.

The tinkering by the government is not enough to save this legislation. We also believe, in fairness, that committee work cannot do it either because it is fundamentally flawed.

There is terrible potential in any legislation that impedes or opens the door to the violation of the rights people, which include loss of liberty, then a deportation order and the very serious possibility of being removed to torture. In the very name of human rights, such legislation like this should not move forward.

Imagine for a moment a person is detained and deported from Canada and that person may never ever know the reason why. Equally horrific is the fact the failure to have due process for those reasons will never be aired to the public. Canadians will never know if they were at risk or if the risk was real. Also, in the sense of pure justice, there is no opportunity for anyone to refute the charges against them.

In the name of fear we are prepared to sacrifice due process and the fundamental right of democracy for people to face their accusers and to examine and defend against the evidence against them. This is worse than a kangaroo court. At least a kangaroo court has the facade of due process. Bill C-3 has none of that.

The legislation tabled a special advocate as part of the security process. Special advocates are used in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand, but the process does not fix what is wrong with security certificates in either of those places. Hearings are still conducted in secret. Sources of information are still kept confidential. It is no surprise that a special advocate in the UK, with seven years' experience, recently resigned in protest.

The Criminal Code already has the tools that we need to protect our national security, while honouring the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We also believe that foreign nationals and permanent residents should face the same processes and the same punishments as Canadians.

We have two problems with security certificates. First, they violate the Charter of Rights and undermine our justice system. Second, they are not the right tool for protecting national security. Even if security certificates were found to be constitutional, they still would not be the right strategy for fighting terrorism. The Criminal Code is for that.

Again, to reiterate, security certificates are the wrong way to deal with national threats. People who plot a terrorist attack on Canada should be tried, convicted and punished, not simply deported to another country to either find their way back here or, if they are guilty of terrorism, to plot against other parts of the world and perhaps our allies.

Terrorism, espionage and organized crime are serious matters that should always be dealt with under our Criminal Code, not the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Security certificate processes also violate rights and undermine the core values of our justice system. This is why they were struck down by the Supreme Court and this is why the people we have heard from, the experts in the field, say that this legislation will be struck down.

The public safety file is essentially about protecting the quality of life of Canadians. New Democrats, and members of the House as well, have always been very concerned about those balances between being free and being secure.

We not only oppose the legislation because of the major flaws I spoke to earlier, but we have no guarantee that suspected terrorists, removed under certificates, will not return to this country. The NDP believes clearly that the Criminal Code should be used to seek justice. That is a term that we do not hear when we look at the bill, justice.

We are asking to have the right to pick a person off the street, detain them, put them on a plane and send them off without having the right to seek justice, not having the right to stand before our courts, stand before their communities, stand before their families and argue in defence of themselves.

Today, of the five individuals who were detained, four are out. They wear ankle bracelets as they travel around. We should consider for a moment some of the restrictions they are living under, and this is supposed to be better than being housed and detained. With the ankle bracelet, if one of these people decides to leave the front room and go to the back of the house, that individual has to be accompanied by someone from the family. If the person goes into backyard, that person has to be accompanied by someone from the family.

If these people come to the House, they have to supply CSIS with exact routes, exact turns in the road, exact timing. Why in the world would we support anything that curtails the human rights of people, the rights of coming and going, to that degree? Why in the world would we ever consider putting ourselves in the position as a country to be party to the kind of thing that happened to Maher Arar?

We have Mr. Almalki who spent months, as Mr. Arar did, in a prison contained in a space the size of a coffin. That is how it has been described to me. When we deport people, what controls are put on that action? Where are the accountability lines that will come back to us to ensure we will have the kind of guarantees that people will not be subjected to torture?

We hear in this place every day about Afghanistan, the prisoners who are turned over to the Afghan authorities and questionable reports about the potential for abuse there. These are our allies in combat. We do not have a real report in the House that we can look at, what happened, who has followed up and where the lines of accountability are.

If we deport people to a country, if we literally put them on an airplane, send them to that country, how can we expect a line of accountability somehow in countries that torture individuals? It is not there. Every citizen in our country, every foreign national has a right to expect of our government and each of us here to ensure they are protected by every aspect of our freedoms in our country. One of the those freedoms is the freedom against torture.

As I have said repeatedly and have done so on purpose in my remarks today, the other expectation they have is their rights to face their accuser, to seek justice, to see the evidence against them. That right is something every Canadian holds dear. What has changed? I talk about how the mentality in the U.S. has changed and how that mentality has moved northward. Within governments it has changed. I spoke about the “hang 'em high” attitude.

Fairness and justice in the minds of Canadians has not changed. If we talk to Canadians in depth about this bill, they will say that they do not accept it and in fact they do not understand how we could even have come this far.

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, we are in support of the motion. However, one thing that strikes us, and we heard a member opposite speak of sovereignty, is we need changes to the investment act legislation to protect Canadian ownership and Canadian industry. In Hamilton, Dofasco and Stelco, two icons of Canadian industry, are no longer Canadian owned and we need to protect that.

One other concern is the Canadian International Trade Tribunal does not have a single worker representative on it. I believe members opposite would agree that this is a travesty. The labour movement of our country should have a seat at the table. Would the hon. member agree with that?

[Housing, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, housing is becoming more and more inaccessible for many working families in Canada.

This January housing costs were up 7% in my community of Hamilton where the average cost of a house is over $265,000. The Conservatives' GST cut will not even amount to an average of $100 in savings and that just does not get it done.

Local not for profit groups like the Hamilton East Kiwanis Non-profit Homes in my riding struggle with the flawed funding formulas and inaction of current and past governments. Flawed funding formulas that mean decreasing subsidies while maintenance and capital costs, and property taxes all increase.

The throne speech reminded Canadians they should be worried about housing and homelessness issues, but it did not commit to doing anything about it. This week's fiscal update only talked about rebates for people who own homes, nothing for affordable, quality housing for those who need it.

The NDP is committed to reducing the prosperity gap between Canadians. We are committed to fighting for a national housing strategy that helps not for profit groups meet housing needs in our communities.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of Mary Mason and Donna Dixon, who have worked hard in Hamilton searching for their son and grandson, Billy Mason, who has been missing for two years. They hit a wall when they found that there was no DNA data bank for them to be able to compare some articles of clothing that have been found.

This has been under study since 2005. This petition of 6,600 names is demanding that the federal government get the job done on behalf of Canadians.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the member for Eglinton—Lawrence is still here with us. I took personal offence to his comments earlier. It was said that members present today, because they were not on the committee, were here with a politicking agenda and that there had been a politicking agenda at committee from the NDP.

The member might recall that in my remarks and in my questions to the other member who spoke earlier, I talked about rail safety. Part of the reason I was motivated to talk about it was it was in line with aircraft safety. When there is an accident, it is a serious accident. As a signal maintainer for the railway, I stood beside seven bodies on three different occasions waiting for a coroner to rule on whether the railway had followed safe practices, and in that case myself as the maintainer.

My interest in safety for workers is something that I guard very jealously. I think we just saw first-hand politics here.

[Aeronautics Act, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I used to work for CN 30-some years ago and I have seen quite a change in what I would consider the level of rail safety that has been deemed acceptable, and I am not quite as excited about those changes.

In fact, just removing the cabooses for the electronic light that was put on the back has taken people out of that particular venue of safety of watching what are known as hot boxes, and I am sure the member understands what that is.

However, coming back to Bill C-7, SMS is something like the fox watching the chickens because the hon. member is saying that the industry will be able to monitor itself and decide what risk is acceptable. I spoke on Bill C-6 in this House and every time members of this place get on board a plane they had better start thinking twice because this is a significant degradation of the safety of our airlines.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very concerning topic because in my region we have tens of thousands of new Canadians who are separated from their families and looking forward to the opportunity of bringing their families together.

We have the once in a lifetime bill that was proposed by the member for Hamilton Mountain. It is shameful that there was nothing in this throne speech to even begin to address that significant issue.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing from the member opposite. Having a prescription drug plan in his province is certainly an achievement and one that should be shared across the country, but we are part of a federal establishment here and the role of the federal government is to set standards nationally across our country. We see the prescription program as something that must be a national program.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, somewhat like a magician, they trick us with one hand to keep our attention and then they pick our pockets with the other.

I can speak directly to poverty. In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, according to the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, 95,000 families are living in poverty and 52% of those are seniors. The majority of the remaining people in poverty in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek are women and children. Those are the facts.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to take part in this debate. It is a privilege for me to rise in the House today to reply to the Conservative government's throne speech.

I want to re-emphasize that our caucus, unlike others, is united in our belief that the throne speech shows clearly that the Conservative government is planning on taking Canada further in the wrong direction.

I am part of a party that knows what it believes and unlike some other members of the House, we will not be afraid to stand up for the principles we share with hard-working Canadians.

I will speak a little later about some of the specifics of the speech, but I want for a moment to reflect on what is not in the throne speech. What is not in the speech is almost as telling about the Conservative vision for Canada as what is in it.

Even though one of the Conservatives' key promises in the last election was for health care and reducing wait times the throne speech makes no mention of improving wait times. In fact, the throne speech does not even mention the words “health care” or “medicare”, not even once.

The throne speech also does not speak about education or training. The words “university students” and “post-secondary education” never even appear in the throne speech. In fact, the only reference to education in universities and colleges at all is to say that families are worrying about the escalating cost.

Apparently, if one is a student or a parent looking to save for post-secondary education, one cannot depend on the Conservatives to deliver. It is not part of their vision.

Development workers we are asked to honour by voting in favour of a mission in Afghanistan that we know a majority of Canadians do not support. Other workers mentioned are those in Canada's traditional industries, like manufacturing industries and steel. Steel is still a major employer and economic driver in my community. I guess apparently these industries can rest easy. At least they are mentioned in the Conservative vision for Canada.

How workers in these industries who are supposed to be comforted by the fact that for nearly two years in power absolutely nothing concrete has been done to plan for the future of these industries is actually beyond me.

At least manufacturing workers are in the vision for the future. No other workers are mentioned. The entire topic of jobs alone is mentioned only once in the entire throne speech.

Afghanistan gets six mentions, the military three, the same for the Canadian Forces, but jobs and the Conservative vision of this country is worth only one single mention.

The throne speech also does not speak about inclusion or multiculturalism. Those words are not in the speech because of a lack of vision that the Conservatives have in these particular area. The only time women are even mentioned in the throne speech is in the context of men and women in uniform.

I could go on but during this last week Canadians are beginning to express the concerns the NDP have expressed for months in the House and in communities across the country. They are beginning to say as we have that the government must change direction. Canadians see Canada at war. Canadians see our climate in crisis and that middle class families are falling further and further behind.

This was the time for the federal government to show leadership. This was the time for the Conservative government to show all Canadians that its vision includes their needs, their hopes and their desires for a better future. Sadly in the eyes of many it did not do it. The Conservative government has proven once again that it simply cannot get the job done.

Our NDP members listened very carefully to the throne speech and the subsequent debate, and we were somewhat surprised to hear that the Prime Minister is now open to the NDP proposal of long standing that the Senate should be abolished. That is a long ways from the man who put an unelected Senator in charge of signing cheques for our people's money.

The promised apology in the Speech from the Throne to Canada's first nations for the terrible injustices and abuses in the residential school system is possibly the only bright spot. An actual apology might have been better. It is unclear why Canada's aboriginal peoples have to wait even one moment longer, but that promise is one that I guarantee my colleagues and myself will hold the government to.

During the prolonged summer break I met with many of the hard working folks in the riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. As an aside I would like to mention and acknowledge the excellent provincial campaign of the NDP's Paul Miller in my riding. The people of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek have chosen the NDP to represent them in Ottawa and now in Queen's Park. I know they have chosen an excellent representative.

Over the extended summer break, I heard countless stories from hard-working folks who are having real trouble making ends meet. Today, when tremendous wealth is being created in our country, in fact more wealth than at any other time in history, these families have told me that they now need to work longer just to make ends meet. Something is clearly wrong with this picture and Canadians know it.

The NDP has been warning about the growing prosperity gap and how it is putting working families and the middle class further and further behind. Now we have the shame of more than two million seniors living in poverty across this country, the same folks who helped establish the fundamentals that gave us the wealth that we have today. At the same as our seniors are facing financial and personal crises, a few people at the top are enjoying the benefits of the current economy.

A fine example of the growing gap happened in my community. When Stelco came out of CCAA protection and was sold, while former shareholders and retirees dangled in the wind, one of Stelco's top company executives pocketed over $60 million. People also told me that they were expecting action from the government to help their families make ends meet, to make the necessities of life more affordable and to ensure them greater financial security.

With the throne speech, the Conservative government could have chosen to reduce the prosperity gap between the rich and the workers of Canada, but no. Instead, it chose to do nothing on that front.

Speaking of workers from my riding, on the weekend I was told of their disappointment in the throne speech because it showed them how much the government fails to understand their plight or, worse, that it does not care. Canadians know that what is needed now is real leadership in these key sectors of the economy. What they also now know is that the Conservative agenda announced in the throne speech has failed them once again. A quick mention of the sector fails to give hope to the families and communities that are suffering massive job losses across this country resulting from the government's devastating policy.

The speech also fails to provide leadership for families when it comes to health care. Still today, across Canada millions of families cannot find a doctor, wait times are still too high and the cost of prescription drugs continues to skyrocket. By ignoring these fundamental issues, the Conservative agenda, as it was laid out in the throne speech, has turned its back on improving health care for today's families.

I want to say here today that despite the Conservative indifference through all of this, the NDP caucus will redouble its efforts to campaign for universal drug coverage. Whether it does so in the House or on the streets, no matter. The hard-working families of this country must get the drugs they deserve based on their doctors' advice and not on their ability to pay.

Earlier this summer, I was in Montreal in Outremont and I observed one very important thing that voters in Quebec have in common with voters all across Canada. They are terribly concerned with climate change. If we listen, working Canadians everywhere are very concerned about the future climate changes being predicted by scientists from around the world. They are now beginning to recognize that the current government has and the preceding government failed to get Canada on the right track for tackling climate change.

Quebeckers and all Canadians know that under the Liberals greenhouse gases increased by 23% beyond Kyoto objectives. Canadians are asking questions, such as how the Liberals, when the current leader was minister of the environment, could have allowed greenhouse gases to increase to levels even greater than the Bush administration. Canadians know we are facing an uncertain future and an unprecedented global crisis and they are, rightly, asking why the Conservative government continues to use Liberal failures as an excuse for inaction on this file.

Beyond those questions, Canadians are demanding real, concrete action now. They know that the watered down clean air and climate change act is not the path to follow if Canada is to truly respond to this crisis.

In my riding, I have heard folks talk regularly about the growing concerns with regard to the combat mission in Afghanistan and that it is not the right mission for Canadians. People were very clear. While they support our troops in every sense of the word, they told me that this was not the role they wanted to see their country play on the world stage.

It is only the NDP that has always been clear and consistent on this issue. It is the wrong mission for Canada. We are not a afraid of the consequences of our actions because we firmly believe in our principles.

This is why we will oppose the Speech from the Throne. Unlike the leader of the Liberal Party, we will not pretend and we will not criticize only to sit back later and hide behind excuses. We will not shirk our responsibilities.