House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2021, with 61% of the vote.
Justice November 23rd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, for weeks the justice minister has squirmed uncomfortably between loyalties: his duty to remove his government's fingerprints from the Mulroney file and his real duty as Canada's justice minister.
Why will he not allow full disclosure when it comes to his own involvement on this file and tell us who shut down his department's review of the $2.1 million Mulroney settlement?
Foreign Affairs November 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that I actually was a rookie. I had been here several months and had made the mistake of referring to a group of seniors who were visiting from my riding. I was chastised and for 30 days I could not stand and ask a question or speak in the House. So I think the same conditions apply.
Sri Lanka November 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, Sri Lanka continues to be devastated by civil war. The UN has raised concerns about human rights abuses amid this renewed civil war, while the increased violence in Sri Lanka has led to the suffering of displaced people.
I have raised this issue in this House before, as have my colleagues, and I will continue to raise it until the government steps up and takes on a leadership role in finding a lasting, peaceful resolution to this conflict.
Canada is a peaceful, responsible and caring nation. Canadians expect their government to take action to help the people of Sri Lanka. We must act now to facilitate an immediate end to the violence that has cost so many lives.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we introduced the whole issue of having a free trade agreement with Korea. We were talking about a variety of deals and the government is continuing with them, but a free trade deal needs to be one that is fair for Canada, fair for consumers and fair for Canadians.
The government can have all the negotiations it wants but it is like the softwood lumber negotiations. It can negotiate but at some point I guess it just gives in and signs the deal that somebody else wants. That may be the Conservative plan but that is not our plan. The whole intention was to ensure we had a deal that was respectful of all Canadians and in the best interests of Canada.
If we are going to turn around and send a whole lot of agriculture or fish to compensate for one vehicle that is brought into Canada at a value of $15,000 or $20,000, imagine how much fish we will need to send or agricultural products before we will be compensated equally to a car.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on an issue that is very important.
On October 24, I had asked the Minister of International Trade to protect Canadian jobs and to stand up for our auto industry. Not only did the minister not answer my question, which is not an always unusual thing around here, but he accused an important workers group of engaging in “fraudulent economics”.
That group was an organized union group that was visiting and talking with all members of Parliament. They had a lot of statistics and I have not been able to find any of them that were fraudulent.
I stressed that the minority Conservative government should never sign a deal that fails to eliminate non-tariff barriers. It is an issue that is important to many of us in the House. The minister replied by saying, “We clearly are focused on non-tariff barriers”. Then he said, “We are focused on tariff barriers”. Which is it?
This rubbish answer is clearly not acceptable to Canadians who are trying to understand exactly what this process is and how important these deals are, how the auto industry is extremely important and how the deal with South Korea is an extremely important one for our country.
Our manufacturing industry is in crisis and our auto industry is clearly being hit very hard, yet the government continues to negotiate a flawed free trade deal with South Korea that is bad for the auto industry and bad for Canada.
Thousands of jobs have been lost this year and more will be lost under this proposed agreement. Hence the reason that we are concerned about exactly what is in the deal and whether or not it will come to Parliament, so that all of us can have our chance to comment on it.
Just two weeks ago, Chrysler announced it will eliminate about 1,100 jobs in Brampton as part of its second restructuring in eight months. Since one job in the auto industry results in up to 7,000 spin-off jobs, those are major losses in Ontario and throughout Canada.
The minority Conservative government is selling out the auto industry in its free trade agreement negotiations with South Korea. The agreement is so dangerous as it does not provide fair access to the lucrative South Korean market. It is something that we all share. We want a free trade deal, but we want a fair deal.
If we are to improve our free trade agreement, we must first ensure that the minister and his negotiators have secured an agreement with South Korea that allows Canada's auto industry access to South Korean's large auto market. That is what a free trade deal is supposed to be doing.
The Liberal Party wants to make certain that any free trade agreement with South Korea contains mechanisms that will actually result in a free and fair deal. The minority Conservative government has refused to have a debate in Parliament on this critical issue.
Our responsibility as parliamentarians on all sides of this House means that we are better off not striking a deal at all if we are not going to strike one that is good for Canada. We must ensure that any potential South Korean free trade agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians. It is critical that the Canadian industry and workers see positive results rather than the continued attack on the domestic industry that has been the result of so many of the Conservative policies.
Airbus November 20th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives have nothing to hide, what is the problem?
The Prime Minister's Office claims that these troubling allegations stayed in the Privy Council Office. Are Canadians supposed to believe that PCO did not warn the Prime Minister to keep his distance from Mr. Mulroney while they were repeatedly arranging meetings between the two men?
The Prime Minister praised Mr. Mulroney in a speech just last April, after these allegations were sent to his office. When the Prime Minister said that Mr. Mulroney would be remembered as Canada's greenest prime minister, was he talking about the money?
Airbus November 20th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, we all know that Mr. Schreiber sent many letters to the Prime Minister, including at least two outlining serious allegations since June 2006. The Prime Minister continues to say that only senior public servants saw these letters, as well as a few from PMO.
Will the Prime Minister finally shed some light on this? Will he table in the House the official correspondence routing records, what staff saw these records and on what date?
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act November 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, police in our major cities have a huge responsibility to do the right thing when they are dealing with crime and various other activities. When they have concerns about a particular group of people, they often will spend up to 18 months working on that group. Just because people are affiliated with a group, it does not mean they are necessarily part of that group or that they are terrorists.
The police have a difficult job. We have a difficult job. It is a question of finding balance and respecting an individual's rights.
Some of those people were detained and subsequently released, but I think that once people have been detained and have had that label put on them, it is very difficult to have it removed. I think that stigma would be with them forever. I think it is always a question of being cautious before laying charges and of making sure we have all the information we need.
As for Bill C-3, at committee we will have a chance to find out what we are talking about as far as reasons for detaining someone and taking away his or her liberties are concerned. Maybe we need to specify more clearly the reasons why someone should be detained. These are the kinds of things that we can talk about at committee to make sure that this legislation is vented properly and that it achieves what we want it to achieve, which is to ensure that we are all fighting terrorism together, that Canada remains a safe place, and that we are doing our part in the fight against terrorism around the world.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act November 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I guess time will tell. I would like to think that we would look at and learn from the U.K. model and the New Zealand model. I would like to think that we would make sure that in one way or the other the rights of the individuals being detained are paramount.
This is not a question of government interference. There should be an arm's-length ability for a special advocate to have full access to whatever evidence is put forward to detain an individual. If the advocate does not feel that it meets the proper requirements, it should not just be an opportunity to detain somebody and throw away the key because we have questions about whether or not they are a threat to the country.
I would only assume that these things are not done lightly. I can assure my colleague, from some previous experience in life, that security certificates are not things that we sign off on easily. There is a huge amount of responsibility there.
I would hope that we would learn from the U.K. and New Zealand models to make sure that the role of special advocate proposed in this legislation includes the tools and the ability and the arm's-length firmness to be able to stand up to the government or to parliamentarians as a whole and say that there is not enough evidence and an individual's rights are being abused. I expect that we would all make human rights paramount. I am sure that we do not want our rights abused, nor should we be abusing anyone else's.
I would hope that we learn from the U.K. and New Zealand models and make our special advocate, as a result of this legislation, even better and that we continue to look at it and find ways to strengthen this legislation.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act November 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a huge amount of interest in this issue. To answer his question, it will be difficult. There is a very short timeline. Possibly, parliamentarians will have to work over January if we are to meet that February 2008 date. However, I suspect it will not be the first time we have not met a date requirement and we will have to ask for an extension.
We should remember that while we are moving forward in all of this, many people around the world are watching Canada and how we will deal with the legislation. Will we make sure it is respectful of human rights, respectful of the charter and respectful of all of the things that matter so much to us as Canadians?
Listening to the concerns of my colleague from Burnaby, and I am sure there are concerns on all sides of the House, we are uncomfortable with the previous legislation. We are probably still uncomfortable with Bill C-3, while recognizing that fighting terrorism is something we all have to do. The government has to have the tools necessary to take whatever action is necessary to ensure we are safe as a country and that we are working with other countries around the world to prevent the continuation of terrorism.
It is critically important that we get the bill to committee. We hope this week it will go through and the committee can start work next week. Knowing the way parliamentarians feel, I expect they will put a lot of hours into looking at this on all sides of the discussions and arguments that no doubt will be there on behalf of many individuals.
Where we are going with it is an improvement to the process. A special advocate will be a good approach. We need to get the bill to committee, work on it, and get it back into the House to be approved. The sooner we do that the better for Canada.