Penny Priddy

[Committees of the House, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the city of Surrey, where I am from, the two women's centres that I work most closely with talk very frequently about businesses where they see people, women primarily, who are being trafficked, but it seems that as soon as they are identified as such, there is no way to prove that they are not legitimate businesses.

People have spoken to the kind of police resources needed, and I hope there are enough resources because it is one of the issues here. Our communities have indicated to the federal government that they need more resources to carry out police duties to their communities.

Members today have spoken of girls and boys, or women and men. Most often when members of the public think or read about human trafficking, they think of women and girls, but we know very well that it also involves young boys and teenagers.

Are there different tactics used with young boys? Are there different approaches that should be used for young boys or young men? I am wondering whether there should be resources in place for them as well and whether those would be different.

[Criminal Code, January 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on the fact that within the legislation there is nothing about compelling government or businesses to notify people when there has been identity theft through a chain store or when government information has been lost or somehow misplaced or stolen, and we have seen a number of examples? That is not included in the legislation and I am interested in the member's comments about whether businesses and government should be as compelled as anybody else.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak briefly, or extensively as he wishes, about article 71 which is about the termination of contracts. Perhaps he could speak to why he sees that as being helpful and how that would work.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is no means by which a sovereign state, in which an investment is being made, can make an appeal on behalf of its citizens. I wonder about my colleague's comment about the Conservative member who earlier talked about protecting companies not being allowed to invest in some countries and that it would be discriminatory. On the other hand, there could be discrimination against all the citizens who live there--

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if I had not been told earlier that the Bloc supported this motion, I would not have known that given the comments of the member. The member has raised legitimate concerns around the sporadic publication of treaties, the consulting of civil society, the impact on the lives of people and therefore it should be looked at more carefully. He has said that the Conservative words are not worth that much. Those comments to me do not sound particularly supportive of this treaty.

One of my other colleagues will have subsequent question, but my question for the member would be this. Given all those comments, which were primarily of concern, why then does the member support the bill?

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested, to say the least, in the comments that the member has made, the first one being that it will only ever be the Liberals or the Conservatives that are government. Talk about entitlement, that somehow this member has said that this is an entitlement, that there could only be two parties ever in Canada. I would suggest that perhaps not all Canadians would like their vote nullified and removed.

The other piece I was concerned about was the member talking about following the good policies of the Conservative government. Sometimes it is hard to tell because when members are sitting down during a vote, it is a little hard for me to know whether they are following or not following the policies of the Conservative government.

However, this is a secret tribunal and not every arbitration is secret as we heard argued earlier by the parliamentary secretary. These are secret. There is no access by the public to the results of the arbitration at all, so I do not know how anyone could argue that these are not secret tribunals and the information is therefore not kept secret afterward.

I would like to hear the member describe why he would not describe this as a secret tribunal if only the two parties and the people in the World Bank are the only individuals who are allowed access to that information.

[Settlement of International Investment Disputes Act, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, transparency is one of the things the public is particularly concerned about not only in this agreement but with government processes in particular. People tell me that they have no idea what is going on, that they do not know how to get information and that the information seems quite secretive.

There will be no transparency in this process because the agreements will not be released to the public. The public will not know how the agreements are awarded. If we are interested in transparency or in making a cogent decision, it is interesting to note that there is no allowance for third party, or amicus curiae as the document refers to, to get more information on a decision about to be made.

The bill states that once the consent of a party is given it cannot be revoked. I understand the need for stability and that consent is not given lightly because many things may be dependent upon that. However, it is very worrisome to say that under no circumstances, no matter what happens, consent cannot be revoked. We are not always able to foresee the future. We are not able to say that it will always be fine under these circumstances, that this will be a very binding agreement.

Decisions about how the awards are made will not be available to the public. These decisions will affect the public both here in Canada and abroad in a variety of ways. For the public not to have access to this kind of information because of the lack of transparency is a problem.

Could the parliamentary secretary perhaps describe why no information about the awards should be made available to the public under any circumstances?

[Petitions, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with over 3,000 names. These petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to grant Mr. Laibar Singh permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[Infrastructure, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is leaving Canada's cities to crumble.

Last month, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities told the government that cities and communities across the country desperately needed better infrastructure funding. What did the Minister of Finance say? He said that the federal government was “not in the pothole business”. That was an outrageous response to a serious issue.

My community of Surrey North is among those in need of help. We urgently need $20 million to upgrade the Fraser Highway, a critical transportation route. We need $800 million to build better commuter transit along the King George and Fraser Highways. As one of the fastest growing communities in Canada, we need $10 million each year to upgrade its roadways.

The Conservatives say that they are not in the business of fixing potholes but the federal government must be an active partner in building Canadian cities.

On behalf of the city of Surrey, I call on the Conservatives to do the right thing: give Canadian cities the support they need to maintain a good--

[Budget Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Parkdale—High Park this question. How does she see the lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly transit, affecting the economy in her riding?