Alexa McDonough

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I love the comment by the Conservative member that actions and words should be the same, because we heard the words from the former opposition leader in this House. The words were that there should be an Atlantic accord. He not only stood here in this House and proposed a motion asking members to support that Atlantic accord, it passed in this House. This is a Prime Minister who said that he was going to restore the sanctity and dignity of this Parliament, and that if there were decisions made in this Parliament, then any government in power should honour those decisions. I guess that only referred to the previous government, that if the Liberal government were part of passing something in this chamber, it should be required to honour the commitment and implement it, but that is not the case.

That former opposition leader is now in power. He is in government. He is the Prime Minister. He has seen fit to preside over and introduce a budget, to support his Ontario base from the Mike Harris team, the Ontario finance minister, and introduce a measure that creates a huge gap between his words, the commitment he made in this House and on the campaign trail, and what is in the budget.

That is what it is about, making sure that the words and the actions go together. The member from Saskatchewan should understand that in his province a unanimous motion was passed condemning this budgetary measure.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, you are quite right. I have been here long enough to know that I should not call the Prime Minister by name. It is just that my provincial counterpart did and I quoted him, but I understand your point.

The leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia said that the Prime Minister endorsed the offshore accord when he was the opposition leader and now the Conservatives are treating Nova Scotia, and indeed the Atlantic provinces, in a way that will enshrine regional disparity.

I can see that members on the Conservative benches are rolling their eyes and thinking would they not expect a New Democrat to say that, the New Democrats here in the House and New Democrats in opposition in Nova Scotia. Yes, we would expect them to say that.

Let me quote something else. This is from a motion that was passed in the Nova Scotia legislature in the aftermath of this incredible betrayal. Here is the motion that was passed in the Nova Scotia legislature:

Whereas the 2007-08 federal budget unfairly forces the Province of Nova Scotia to choose between economic development and sustaining its share of equalization to support the fundamental needs of the people of this province; and

Whereas this is a major blow to the efforts of Nova Scotia to become self-sufficient; and

Whereas the commitment to all citizens of Canada to restore the country's fiscal balance include a promise to “ensure that no province is adversely affected from changes to the equalization formula”;

Therefore be it resolved that all representatives of this House of Assembly stand together in calling on the federal government to recommit to the true intent of the Atlantic accord, to stand alone as an economic tool to support Nova Scotia's goal of self-sufficiency and remove what is, in fact, a discriminatory budgetary hammer on the people of Nova Scotia.

The member for Central Nova is best known to people as the foreign affairs minister, but he also serves and proudly does so as the political minister for Nova Scotia. I think he should go to Nova Scotia and explain how it is that he has been able to support this discriminatory budgetary hammer on the people of Nova Scotia. He wears the title and gets the perks that go with it. Therefore, he should give an accounting of that spectacular betrayal.

I admire the fact that across the board the members of the Nova Scotia legislature have stood together and stood up for Nova Scotians.

Let me also challenge the premier of Nova Scotia to go one step further. He will know that the premier of Newfoundland has seen fit to counsel the people of his province, particularly within his party, to not vote for the Conservative Party in the next election whenever it comes. I do not get to challenge the premier of Nova Scotia, but let me remind him what has been said by his provincial counterpart in Newfoundland. Danny Williams has suggested that the Prime Minister cannot be trusted. He is the same Prime Minister who basically reneged on money for women, for literacy groups, for volunteers, for students, for minority rights. He is a Prime Minister who has not lived up to the Kyoto accord and for aboriginal people.

There is a long list of people who have been hard done by the government in a minority situation. If the Conservatives were to get a majority government, I am quoting the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland who said that we have to be very concerned about what commitments they will deliver on.

This is a challenge to all members. The challenge is whether we are prepared to stand together around commitments made on the floor of this legislature, whether we are prepared to stand together for measures that reduce the prosperity gap. That is what is at the heart of this motion. Also, the challenge is whether we are prepared to stand together to say this is our vision for a better Canada and we are prepared to work together to put that vision into effect.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I am very pleased to be participating in this debate, but I have to say that like many, many people in my province of Nova Scotia and I think it is fair to say throughout Atlantic Canada, and fair-minded people across the country who care about broken promises and care about narrowing prosperity gaps, it is absolutely infuriating that we are having to have this debate today because of what this debate is about. This debate is about broken promises and a government that has completely betrayed a commitment that the Conservatives made when in opposition, that they made here by voting in the House of Commons, and they made on the campaign trail.

For those who are trying to follow the debate, let me make it clear that what we are debating is the Conservative government's abandonment of principles respecting the Atlantic accords, equalization and non-renewable resource revenues as articulated in a motion put before the House on March 22, 2005.

Without taking too much time to go back, because we have to move forward on this, let me just refer to that motion that was introduced by the Conservatives in March 2005. What a difference an election can make. The motion asked that the House call upon the government, the then federal Liberal government, “to immediately extend the expanded benefits of the recent Atlantic accord to all of the provinces since the existing equalization clawback on non-renewable resource revenues severely curtails the future prosperity of Canada by punishing the regions where the economy is built on a non-renewable resource base”. Let me just pick up on the word “prosperity”.

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that if my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore can get here from committee on time, I will be dividing my time with him.

Let me just say what my colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia said on hearing about the betrayal contained in this week's budget. The NDP leader of the official opposition, Darrell Dexter, said that Harper endorsed the offshore accord when he was the opposition--

[Canada Transportation Act, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the comments of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on Bill C-11, which had to do with the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

He wandered into a related subject on the recent strike of UTU workers at CN. If I understood him correctly, he was really chastising the government for not imposing back to work legislation more quickly.

I am a bit surprised to hear the member say that. I think he is well aware that we have a responsibility as members of Parliament to respect a legal strike when it occurs and to respect the negotiating process that takes place. I think he is aware that it very often is much easier to impose an agreement and to end the strike than to take some responsibility for what happens after that. Very often if that happens, then there is bitterness, rancour and unresolved issues and the strike simply drags on.

My question is twofold. First, is it his view that the government should have imposed the back to work legislation even more quickly than it did? Second, what does that say about the member and for that matter the view of his colleague on anti-scab legislation?

[Petitions, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table another petition stating strong opposition to the government's decision to force the privatization of federal public sector jobs at the Highlands Links Golf Course in my province.

Citizens, not just in Cape Breton but across Nova Scotia, are deeply concerned about job losses and the loss to the local economy which will inevitably result from such action.

The petitioners call upon the government to put the funding and management in place to keep this course in the public domain for future use and for future public sector workers.

[Petitions, February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in tabling a petition expressing concern about the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.

The petitioners state unequivocal support for the brave men and women serving in the Canadian armed forces but call upon the government to begin the withdrawal of troops from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to make some brief remarks. I have only 10 minutes to speak to the Anti-terrorism Act, which was passed by the House. I do not think a single member of Parliament would disagree that at the time we were in a climate of considerable fear and apprehension.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. He has provided astounding leadership around the issues with which we have been grappling ever since.

Members who have been following the anti-terrorism debate in the House will know that my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh has filed a minority report in relation to the two issues principally before us now, those sections of the Anti-terrorism Act that pertain to investigations and preventive arrests.

It will surprise no one that I am in absolute agreement with my colleague, the justice critic for the New Democratic party. In fact, all my colleagues stand together to oppose what we think remain provisions of the act that were clearly recognized at the time to be out of balance with what was necessary to achieve, weighing off security demands against civil liberties and human rights.

The fact that the government is not prepared to allow the sunset clause to apply to these two provisions is a clear and an alarming signal that it has not learned the lessons, lessons well learned by a great many Canadians at a grave expense and a tremendous cost to those victims of the overzealousness of some of these provisions.

No one has said this better than the NDP justice critic. Terrorism cannot be fought with legislation. It must be fought through the efforts of intelligent services, combined with appropriate police action. There is no act of terrorism that is not already a criminal offence, punishable by the most stringent penalties under the Criminal Code. This is obviously the case for premeditated, cold blooded murders. However, it is also true for the destruction of major infrastructures.

It is very much the view of the NDP that if in any respect the Criminal Code is lacking, the legislation is insufficient to deal with the threat of terrorism, then this can be amended. If the police do not have the full legal means needed to deal with terrorism threats, then that legislation should be amended. No one has brought forward the amendments that would address this in the Criminal Code.

In our view, the lessons of post 9/11 absolutely lead to the position we have taken today, and that is we have to learn those lessons and apply them. This means we should let those two overzealous measures expire as the sunset clause indicated.

As we began the debate on the legislation, there was a truly superb coalition effort of Quebec Muslim and Arab organizations. They came to the Hill and sought the opportunity to meet with members in all caucuses. I am not sure if they succeeded in doing that. However, it was an excellent experience for the NDP caucus to hear the presentation of that coalition.

I will briefly quote from what is an excellent brief. I want to ensure that it goes into the record. It was one of the most concise and intelligent analyses of the issues we face. The second point in the recommendations brought forward in their analysis of what happened post-9/11 reads:

In Canada, antiterrorism laws...and the applications of the Security Certificates have created a socio-political climate of prejudice fueling Islamophobia and Arabophobia. Canadians and Quebeckers of Muslim faith or Arab heritage are singled out as a threat to national security which is affecting their rights and liberties.

If anyone questions whether that is an accurate description of what has happened to a great many Canadian Muslims and Canadian Arabs post-9/11, simply look back on the disgraceful question period that took place last week. At the sheer mention of the anti-terrorism provisions subject to the sunset clause, the Prime Minister stood in and by reference, by innuendo, spoke about a family member of a member of the House in terms of him being a candidate to come before the secret investigations.

Nothing could more stringently underline why the sunset clause should apply to those investigations. Instead of the Prime Minister creating such innuendoes, he should have been asking, if he has learned any lessons at all about RCMP leaks, why these leaks about someone who may or may not appear before a secret investigation were being given to the public? Why would the Prime Minister participate in referencing what had to be leaks coming from the RCMP? I hope members of the House will reflect on lessons that need to be learned.

I want to briefly quote from the final words of Maher Arar, which he shared with an audience of people across political party lines. However, it was a grave disappointment that only the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, chose not to attend the event. The other party leaders were there. Also a large number of representatives from the other caucuses were there, except the government caucus. This again leads us to believe the government has not learned the lessons of the overzealousness post-9/11.

Here are the words of Maher Arar on that evening of tribute to Monia Mazigh and Maher Arar for the work that they had done for Canadians around the issue of the appropriate balance between security and civil liberties:

—I want to remind you that our rights and freedoms are an inheritance, paid for dearly by countless others before us who saw or experienced injustice, and fought it, often not for themselves, but for those who would come after them. We need to respect this inheritance for its value to us and to our children, as well as for the price others paid for it.

Finally, there was a truly superb address given at the outset of that evening. It was a very fine, insightful, scholarly address by Dr. Tyseer Aboulnasr, who said in part:

Friends, let us never forget that nations are not judged by the laws they write up and lock up in libraries, nations are judged by how they act at times when their dedication to these laws are truly tested. Every country that has chosen to sacrifice the liberties of its citizens and hold them in shackles has done that out of belief that this is necessary for its security. We, Canadians, know better. We know that security without liberty is simply imprisonment. Nothing is more secure than a maximum security prison. We deserve better. We cannot let Canada turn into a maximum security prison by imprisoning one Canadian without the presumption of innocence till proven guilty and without the full opportunity to defend themselves.

For that reason I was genuinely shocked. The day after this superb speech was made in tribute to Maher Arar and Monia Mazigh, the former solicitor general, under the Liberal government, stood in the House in answer to a question I raised. He said that as far as he was concerned we had achieved exactly the right balance between security and civil liberties in the post-9/11 era.

I respectfully disagree with him and I urge members to see the wisdom of letting the sunset clause of these two overzealous measures take effect. They are covered in the Criminal Code and can deal with future threats of terrorism, which we all take very seriously.

[Development Assistance Accountability Act, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly this evening in support of private member's Bill C-293, that is before the House at report stage.

The work that has gone into this bill to bring it to this point is an example of the kind of collaborative effort that often occurs in a positive, constructive way to a much greater degree in a minority government. I want to applaud the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood for having very skilfully led this through the committee process.

Although we are dealing with a private member's bill and no one member is empowered to speak on behalf of all of one's colleagues, it would appear as though the consistent support that was expressed at the committee by the Liberal, Bloc and New Democratic Party members would reflect the support of their respective caucuses.

I am profoundly disappointed to hear the practically wholesale condemnation of the bill, that has now reached the report stage, coming from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and Minister of International Cooperation.

It is demeaning and not worthy of the really quite admirable, collaborative, and cooperative effort that has been displayed to describe the motives, which are not actually parliamentary, of committee members who have supported this in good faith and who have indicated they are prepared to support it, to be doing so only to score points with the Make Poverty History campaign. That is actually somewhat pathetic, I must say.

The Make Poverty History campaign was actually launched by Nelson Mandela as a global effort very much supporting the international cooperative effort to support the millennium development goals and to ensure that every single donor country in the world, every country that is as privileged as Canada is to have immense wealth relative to the developing countries, would live up to their international obligations.

The bill that is before us, which has already been noted by others who have spoken, is not about the volume of aid from Canada. In fact, a parallel effort has gone on for almost the last two years to try to get the Government of Canada to deliver at the level of the minimal requirement, the minimal obligation, that has been defined as the sort of international standard of 0.7% of our gross national income for official development assistance.

This bill is about delivering Canada's aid in a more effective, transparent and accountable way. A good effort has been made into the evolution of the development assistance accountability act. This is a third iteration of a bill that goes back, to give credit where it is due, to the former New Democratic member for Churchill who initially introduced the bill. I subsequently did so. There have been refinements and improvements that have come as a result of the good faith effort at committee and as a result of hearing from witnesses. It is extremely disappointing that the government would basically sweep it aside as being completely unworthy.

Having said that, I hope that what we will see at third reading is sufficient support for this private member's initiative to in fact pass in the House. Such is often a possibility in a minority Parliament.

We are talking in this instance about recognizing how much we owe it to Canadians, as well as to the recipients of ODA, to be as effective and accountable as possible in the use of every single last dollar that is intended to go to overseas official development assistance.

To have an accurate picture, in 2005-06 CIDA's authorized budget was $3.3 billion of which $3.1 billion was disbursed mainly through grants and contributions. This is not about the amount of aid. It is about having a sense of the volume of aid about which we are speaking. Even though it falls very short of our obligation to 0.7%, it is a sizable sum of money.

If we delivered at the level that Sweden or Finland delivers, we would triple the amount of aid that we contribute now. However, the real issue is about the transparency and the accountability in this instance.

I think, as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood has said, anyone who has visited developing countries and has seen the grinding, devastating poverty conditions in which so many women, men and children are living would want to use every possible means we could to make that aid as effective as humanly possible.

We observed these conditions in Kenya. I then had the privilege to spend a week in Uganda at the same time as the member who has sponsored this private member's bill visited Africa with two of our colleagues. We saw children living in the most squalid conditions imaginable, open sewers, no basic sanitation, children who could not possibly remain healthy because of the health hazards. Their living conditions are so desperate that there is no possibility of escaping contamination by TB. We saw families conscientiously trying to use bed nets to prevent their children from suffering from malaria. All of these conditions were crying out for the most effective possible response from donor countries.

Therefore, we should celebrate the fact that a great many witnesses came before our committee. This project started on April 1 of 2003 when we began to really look at our ODA obligations and how we could improve our accountability and transparency as well as meet our obligations at a higher level of ODA.

In the incredible collaborative spirit in which people came together again and again before the committee to plead the case of our doing a more effective job with our aid and also with a more generous allocation of our dollars for aid, I hope the government will reconsider why it would strengthen the message to Canadians and our commitment to the poorest of the poor in the world.

We should pass the bill in this Parliament as a unanimous gesture to say we can do better, we will do more and we will maximize our effectiveness as a generous contributor to overseas official development assistance for those in the world who desperately need our support.

[Government Aid, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in December, Vancouver's Stanley Park was devastated by a vicious storm that damaged 98 acres of forest, along with portions of the seawall and shoreline.

Rebuilding Stanley Park will take an enormous effort, which is why Canadians, myself included, applauded the federal government for allocating $2 million to aid in the restoration of Stanley Park only four weeks after the storm.

In the fall of 2003, Hurricane Juan destroyed 84% of the forests in Halifax's natural jewel, Point Pleasant Park. This represents 135 acres of woodland. Three and a half years later, Halifax has yet to see a cent from the disaster finance assistance arrangements to help restore Point Pleasant Park.

When can Haligonians expect to receive treatment similar to that received by Stanley Park enthusiasts? Is this another example of the federal government turning its back on Atlantic Canadians or just another example of the government not able to see the forest for the trees?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very conscious of the fact that the member for Malpeque has chosen to concentrate his speech on his concerns about the Canadian Wheat Board. That is fair enough. He has the perfect right to do that. My party shares many of those concerns.

It is not surprising to me that he has chosen to focus only on the very last line of the motion, which concerns the Canadian Wheat Board. Let me reiterate the serious the problems with the Canadian Wheat Board, problems that have been created by the government.

My question arises out of the gist of the motion in its entirety. As I read it, it could just as easily have been a motion about his government and its failure to deliver. Now that the Liberals are in opposition, in the penalty box, they are raising objections toward the current government. No wonder Canadians get a bit confused.

My specific question is around the whole issue of the manner in which the former Liberal government is now accusing the Conservative government of its mishandling of judicial matters, and it arises from the mishandling by his government of the whole post-9/11 security, civil liberties and human rights challenges in terms of an appropriate balance.

The member for Malpeque was a member of the cabinet and he was responsible for—