Catherine Bell

[Employment Insurance Act, February 15th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-509, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (extension of benefit period for adoptive parents).

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing this bill today, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, to ensure that an adoptive parent is entitled to the same number of weeks of leave as a biological mother of a newborn child.

Adoptive parents require time to bond with their baby or their child. In cases of adoption of an older infant or a child, it is essential to build that relationship. By providing the extra 15 weeks to an adoptive parent, the bill would allow them the time they need at home with their new child.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, February 15th, 2008]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-508, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (Minister).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to designate the Minister of the Environment as the minister to whom the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission must report.

Currently, the CNSC reports to the Minister of Natural Resources, the same minister to which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports.

This is a conflict of interest for the Minister of Natural Resources, whose mandate is to promote nuclear industry.

Canadians need to have confidence that their government is putting the needs of public safety and the environment ahead of the needs of the nuclear industry.

This simple but effective change provides more ministerial oversight to the nuclear industry of Canada and moves CNSC into a ministry with a mandate more in line with its responsibility to protect human health and the environment.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, February 14th, 2008]

With regard to National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries: (a) what was the total government expenditure, tallied for all government departments including all costs associated with all Advisory Group and Steering Committee meetings, the four Roundtable sessions, additional government staffing requirements, support for civil society and industry participation in the process, facilitation and research; (b) when will the government publicly respond to the Advisory Group report of March 29, 2007; (c) was there any correspondence between the various ministers involved in the Roundtables and private sector companies in the oil and gas or mining sectors and, if so, between which ministers and when; and (d) did private meetings occur between the various ministers involved in the Roundtables and private sector companies in the oil and gas or mining sectors and, if so, with whom and when?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, February 14th, 2008]

With respect to the British Columbia coastline: (a) what, if any, voluntary or mandatory restrictions exist for oil and gas tankers traveling north and south between Alaska and the west coast of the United States; (b) what, if any, voluntary or mandatory restrictions exist for oil and gas tankers traveling east and west, to or from Canadian ports; (c) what is the legal status of the 1972 moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration off the Pacific Coast; (d) what is the official position of the government on the 1972 moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration off the Pacific Coast; (e) what, if any, changes to this policy have occurred since 1972; (f) what is the official position of the government on imposing a formal federal moratorium on the passage of all oil and gas tanker ships in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound; (g) what is the official position of the government on the passage of oil and gas tankers in all directions (north, south, east, and west) from Alaska to points such as East Asia and the west coast of the United States; (h) what, if any, plans does the government have to formalize an overall moratorium of oil and natural gas exploration off the British Columbia coast; (i) what is the government’s plan to deal with oil spills or tankers in distress off the coast of British Columbia; (j) what, if any, studies have been done to determine the risk and potential damage to the waters and coast of British Columbia in case of an accident or spill; and (k) what plans, if any, does the government have to increase Canada’s oil and gas exports, and what impacts on the British Columbia coastline and its waters does the government anticipate as a result of those plans?

[Forestry Industry, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the TimberWest Elk Falls sawmill in Campbell River closes May 8, with 257 workers fired. This is the 112th casualty of the forestry industry crisis, with 30,000 jobs lost since 2003.

It will not stop with the sawmill. The pulp and paper mill next door is struggling to survive the high dollar. Without a secure source of fibre from the sawmill, Campbell River could lose another 400 jobs.

The government must immediately advance the $1 billion trust fund to the provinces. Could the minister tell us how long we will have to wait in Campbell River?

[Committees of the House, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the translation, it said something about Standing Order 67 and on the paper it says Standing Order 66. I just want to clarify that it is Standing Order 66.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent meeting with the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and the lieutenant governor of B.C., Chief Mike Maquinna addressed His Honour Steven Point on the present situation of his people.

He recalled the history of generosity that his people have exhibited since that first meeting in 1792 when Captain Vancouver sailed into Friendly Cove and made contact with the ancestors of today's residents of Tsaxana. That generosity was once against demonstrated in the festivities of the day.

It had not escaped their attention that many of the visitors had stayed and made great fortunes from their land. The same could not be said for his people. He expressed their collective hopes that, in light of the B.C. 2010 Olympics and in just plain return of favour, it would be appreciated if the Mowachaht/Muchalaht could share in the wealth.

The chief asked representatives from government who had been invited to bear witness to their meeting to carry this message to their parliaments. I am privileged today to do that.

The Canadian government must start treating the Mowachaht/Muchalaht and all first nations in this country with a lot more respect and allow them to participate in Canada's wealth.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, and I too will be voting against the bill.

As I said earlier, I have been getting a lot of calls, letters and emails from my constituents and I know that other members have been hearing from their constituents as well. This tells me that Canadians are very concerned about this piece of legislation and they do not want to see it go forward.

Canadians are concerned about human rights. They want the government to protect human rights not just for Canadians who live here, but for people from other countries who want to live here as well.

These are some of the things Canadians have said in their letters: “The answer lies not in taking away freedoms and the rule of law, but enforcing the law as it currently stands. We have laws to prosecute criminals who create acts of wanton terror and mass murder without creating a special set of secret judicial processes to bring them to justice. Please think about this bill carefully before you vote and decide if it is really in the best interest of Canadians to create a system for us and a system for the rest”.

That is something we need to think about very strongly. Why are there two classes of people? Why are we creating another class of people in this country by putting in place a piece of legislation that would violate the Canadian Human Rights Act, and something that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided against, something that circumvents the criminal justice system?

People have likened this to what happened in the past in the second world war with Japanese people who were living in Canada. I know that story very well because my partner is Japanese and his parents were interred in the interior of British Columbia. I also come from a community that had a lot of Japanese people working in a mill there and they were all removed from the community. Many of them were friends of my mother. She has reconnected with those people. They have told us very sad stories. I would hate to see anything like that ever happen again in this country. It is these things that I want to remind people about when we are voting on legislation like this.

I wonder if my colleague could add some more comments on those points.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas were thoughtful. He is very passionate about human rights. I know for him it is very important to speak on this issue.

I agree with much of what he has said about the bill. It seems to circumvent the criminal justice system, which the Supreme Court decided was unconstitutional and a violation of human rights.

With that in mind, I have received many emails, letters and phone calls from constituents. I have one from a young woman who is very concerned about the proposed special advocate model. She says that it does not provide guarantees for a fair trial and it allows individuals to be deported to countries where they face serious risk of torture. She also says that any process to respond to individuals who are accused of being a threat to the security of Canada must conform to international human rights principles. My constituent has asked me to please vote against the bill.

She adds some points that were put forward by Amnesty International. These are human rights principles to guide the immigration security certificate reform. Could my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas comment on some of the things contained within those principles, such as no complicity and torture, or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, no impunity?

Does my colleague agree that criminal proceedings should be in Canada when removal or transfer is not possible? Does he agree that disguised extradition, equal fairness, full answer in defence and injury to international relations is no excuse and detention is a last resort?

He talked about Mr. Almrei. I know my colleague has him visited in the Kingston centre. One of the things says about detention as a last resort is:

In immigration-based security procedures detention must be the last resort. Detention is justified only where the application of other less intrusive measures have been fully considered and rejected by the state. Where affected persons have been detained, that detention must be subject to fair, prompt and regular review by an independent and impartial court. Immigration detention should not be prolonged and can never be indefinite.

I am concerned that Mr. Almrei's detention seems to be indefinite because he does not fit the model that we have prescribed on him. Would my colleague comment on some of those things?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let my colleague from the Bloc know that I will not be supporting the bill. My NDP colleagues and I see this bill as a violation of human rights. It circumvents the criminal justice system. Even the Supreme Court of Canada decided that it was unconstitutional.

However, I want to ask a very short question of my colleague. When we are dealing with issues of terrorism, national security, espionage and organized crime, we in the NDP feel they should be dealt with through the use of the Criminal Code and not through a lesser immigration process. If there is a problem with the Criminal Code's ability to deal with these types of crimes, then these problems with the Criminal Code should be addressed and fixed.

Would my hon. colleague agree with us that these are some of the things that must be addressed to move forward rather than putting in place legislation that violates human rights and the criminal justice system?