Dawn Black

[Petitions, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am the last person in the House who would like to present petitions today. I ask for unanimous consent to present my position.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, June 21st, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of New Westminster—Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a private member's bill to have the name of my riding changed so that it includes the historic and vibrant city of Port Moody, which has been dominated by two events: the 1858 gold rush on the Fraser River and the 1886 arrival of the first transcontinental train across Canada.

I believe it is very important for everyone to see themselves reflected in the names of ridings in the House of Commons. I ask that members support my bill to include the city of Port Moody in the riding of New Westminster—Coquitlam.

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

[National Defence, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just like Frank McKenna, more and more Liberals now want Canada to join the missile defence madness.

New Democrats are focused on the World Peace Forum in Vancouver, but the critical question is which side the government is on. Is it for peace or for an escalated arms race? According to the Department of National Defence, the relationship between Canada Command and the U.S. Northern Command will deepen integration. Is the government joining the missile defence program by stealth, just like documents from DND seem to indicate?

[Points of Order, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound pay tribute to Agnes Macphail earlier in members' statements and talk about Canada's first female member of Parliament, elected in 1921, but it is important to correct the record.

Agnes Macphail was never a Conservative, nor was she ever a Progressive Conservative. She was a radical member of the Progressive Party. She joined the Ginger Group, which later led to the formation of the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP. She was in fact the first leader of the CCF in Ontario. She once said that what gave her strength was hearing the sound of thousands of women following her. Sadly, we have not achieved that.

[Citizenship and Immigration, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, members may be aware that the World Peace Forum will take place in Vancouver later this month, with attendees coming from over 90 countries around the world to participate in this prestigious event.

Unfortunately, the forum will be missing one participant. Myrian Nahimana is a young woman from Burundi, who was invited to attend by the women's working group of the peace forum. She cannot attend because she has been refused a visa by the Canadian Embassy in Nairobi.

Myrian has so much to offer to the forum and to Canadians. Among other issues, she is due to speak about the impact of war and violence on women and girls in Burundi and the experience of young people living with HIV and AIDS. These are such important issues and ones which affect so many citizens, not just in Burundi but around the world.

The decision to deny a visa to this young woman will deny us the incredibly important contribution she has to make. I strongly urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to reconsider this decision and allow Myrian the chance to share with us her valuable insight and experience.

[Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight to Bill C-298, a private member's bill to add perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOS, to the virtual elimination list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This substance is commonly used in many fabrics, usually as a stain repellent. Recent tests have suggested it causes organ damage and problems in development. These tests prompted the USEPA to ban the substance.

PFOS is both persistent and bioaccumulative, according to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act criteria, more persistent than DDT or PCBs.

If we were to eliminate PFOS today, it would take each of us an average of eight years to get rid of half of this chemical in our bodies. In the meantime, our bodies continue to accumulate PFOS.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also has a private member's bill before the House to eliminate phthalates, another chemical, in children's toys, cosmetics and medical devices.

There is extensive scientific literature reporting adverse effects of phthalates, particularly on children, including early puberty in girls, premature delivery of babies, impaired sperm quality and sperm damage in men, genital defects, and reduced testosterone production in boys and testicular cancer.

The EU has banned three of the listed phthalates in children's toys and the other three from toys for children under the age of three.

I am speaking tonight to this private member's bill, not only as a member of Parliament but also as a mother of three sons. Two of my sons have been diagnosed with cancer, different types of cancer. The cancers that my two sons have are not related.

Of course, as parents, we search for reasons why this devastating disease has attacked our child, or in my case, two of my children. I believe, in talking to their oncologist, in talking to the researchers in this field, that it is entirely possible that both of the instances of cancer in my children may have been caused by environmental degradation.

As we collect more and more evidence of the harmful effects of these chemicals to our bodies and to our environment, it is time to act. Both these private members' bills introduce a concept of reverse onus, which would require proof that a chemical is safe before it is allowed to be marketed rather than having to prove a chemical is harmful after the fact.

We owe this to our children. Our children deserve no less. The NDP is supporting this private member's bill to rid our environment of PFOS, a harmful chemical.

I urge the member who has introduced the bill, the member for Beaches—East York, to bring the support of her caucus to my colleague's private member's bill to ban phthalates.

As I said earlier, we owe this abundance of caution to our children. We owe it for a healthy environment and for the development of healthy children. What could be more important than the health of our children and the future of our planet? We must all support this bill in the House of Commons.

[Business of Supply, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from Richmond, who comes from the same province as I do. I am astounded to hear him today indicate that there is no additional help needed for seniors. It is certainly not the message I get in New Westminster—Coquitlam from the seniors in my community or from the seniors in British Columbia.

I remind the member that it was not the New Democratic Party that defeated his government. It was the people of Canada who defeated his government.

Is my colleague is aware of the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations of British Columbia? It has been serving seniors in B.C. for more than 50 years. It is a coalition of more than 40 seniors' organizations and represents more than 40,000 senior citizens in British Columbia. Today, on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, COSCO is sponsoring a gears in motion senior abuse awareness conference today in Vancouver.

Is the member for Richmond aware that COSCO has been calling for a number of years, lobbying the previous government and the present government, for the protection and preservation of our publicly funded universally accessible health care system? The member for Richmond does not seem to be aware that seniors are asking for this.

They have been asking for increases in GIS as one measure that would improve the status of older women who are living in poverty. They have been asking for federal funding for home support programs. They have been asking for a national pharmacare program, a senior housing programs and for financial support for seniors' organizations.

Does the member for Richmond support the goals of COSCO in British Columbia? Will he put on record that he does and that he understands that seniors need improvements in their day to day living?

[Afghanistan, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this announcement of additional funding for development assistance to Afghanistan.

As the leader of the New Democratic Party has stated before in the House, our party and our caucus stands unequivocally behind development assistance to the people of Afghanistan.

We are encouraged by this small commitment that the Prime Minister has made today and we ask the Prime Minister to assure Canadians that Canada will continue to work closely with the Asian Development Bank, and ensure that Canada will seriously consider contributing to the additional rural development needs identified by the bank.

However, this contribution of development assistance must be compared to the price of the military commitment we have made in Afghanistan. Along with the billions of dollars spent on the counter-insurgency campaign against Taliban remnants, Canada has sadly lost the lives of courageous young men and women. We must always keep the human cost front and centre in all our discussions about our role in Afghanistan.

After a hasty debate and vote, Conservatives and many Liberals approved the new two year mission in Afghanistan, a counter-insurgency mission, with little idea of the cost of this mission or its effectiveness.

Unfortunately, in the House and at the defence committee, we have not had open or genuine debate on all of the aspects of our mission in Afghanistan. The debate has been constrained and in the defence committee, the debate was curtailed. We would like to see genuine debate from the government and engagement with all Canadians about our role in Afghanistan.

We, along with most Canadians, stand in favour of assistance to the security, peace and development of Afghanistan. The development assistance announced today is a small step on the path to achieving those goals.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 7th, 2006]

With regard to Canada's commitments in Afghanistan: (a) what is the estimated cost of Canada's continuing commitments; (b) what is the current command structure of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, particularly their relation to United States of America (USA) forces; (c) what is the total number of Canadian soldiers present in Afghanistan at the moment and how will this change over the next 12 months; (d) how will force levels change over the next decade; (e) how does the government see the mission in Afghanistan aligning with Canada's role in the world; (f) is the government aware of the conditions in USA-controlled and Afghanistan-controlled detention facilities in Afghanistan, and, if so, what has the government determined about the conditions; (g) has the government sought assurances from the USA regarding the treatment of prisoners who are handed over to USA or Afghan forces; (h) does the government believe that the Prisoner Transfer Arrangement signed on December 18, 2005 by the Chief of Defence Staff prevents the onward transfer of prisoners to countries other than Canada and Afghanistan; (i) have foreign forces ever surrounded Canadian encampments or bases with anti-personnel land mines; (j) are Canadian bases surrounded by any anti-personnel landmines that have been left from previous conflicts in Afghanistan; (k) how long does the government expect the Canadian military presence in Afghanistan to last; (l) does the government have any plans for further debate in the House of Commons regarding the deployment in Afghanistan; (m) does the government have any plans for a vote in the House regarding new deployments in Afghanistan; (n) are Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan part of the American Operation Enduring Freedom; (o) will Canadian Forces in Afghanistan come under North Atlantic Treaty Organization command, and, if so, when will this happen; (p) does the government believe that the current mission has a United Nations mandate, and, if so, how was it achieved; (q) has the government considered a possible renewal or modification of the Canadian mission, once current commitments have been fulfilled; (r) what is the date on which Canada will have to notify NATO if it wishes to make commitments past February 2007; (s) has the government considered building a joint detention facility with the Netherlands to hold prisoners; (t) have Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan been instructed to uphold both the spirit and the letter of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel land mines; (u) has the government created an exit strategy for our deployment; (v) if we continue at current force levels in Afghanistan, what would be the number of deployable troops available to the Canadian Forces, both at home and abroad, over the next five years; and (w) what is the expected wear on equipment if a long-term mission is taken on?

[The Environment, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I received an e-mail from a constituent, Margaret Harris of New Westminster. She described how she and over 30 employees of Building Insight Technologies in Vancouver were recently laid off because of the government's cancellation of the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program.

Ms. Harris wrote, “This was a great program and I am furious that the federal government chose to be so callous and deceptive in the way they chose to announce this cancellation”. She went on to ask that I let the government know that this is not acceptable.

She is right. This is totally unacceptable. The Conservatives have cut the most productive made in Canada programs that were helping low income Canadians and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberals let our greenhouse gas emissions soar by over 35% and now the Conservatives are cutting green jobs and creating more pollution. This is totally outrageous.