Bill Siksay

[Human Resources and Skills Development, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, access to information is about transparency and accountability, not sanitizing or covering up embarrassing facts. Conservative political staff have admitted that the PMO chastises ministers' offices when unfavourable information is released.

In light of that, will the Minister of Human Resources verify reports that her staff simply did “what ministers' offices are expected to do by the PMO”, or will she follow the cabinet's past practice, deny responsibility and let the interference continue?

[Human Resources and Skills Development, March 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in opposition, the Conservatives promised to end the cover-ups and scandals that we saw from the Liberals. Now that they are in government, it is clear that they did not really mean it. Today, we hear that yet another Conservative political staff person blocked information from being released.

From the Afghanistan cover-up to expensive self-promoting ads, the government thwarts accountability, claiming all decisions about releasing documents are made by non-political public servants. If it is really hands-off, why are its fingerprints all over this censorship?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Bloc supports the report from the committee. We know that the NDP supports it. In fact, we have even tabled private members' legislation paralleling the report. We know that the Conservatives are divided on this because the Conservative chair of the standing committee actually supported the report, whereas other Conservatives were opposed to it. We know that the Liberals at committee were divided. Some of them supported it and some did not.

It is still unclear to me today where the Liberal Party stands on this. I would like to ask the member, will the Liberal Party be supporting the concurrence motion when it comes to a vote in the House, and ensuring that artists are fairly paid for their work?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary speak in this debate, because we know the really checkered history of copyright reform from the Conservative government. The first bill the government crafted was so embarrassing the minister could not even bring himself to table it in the House. The second bill the government brought forward died on the order paper when the government called an early election, and we have not seen a bill since, though we keep hearing promises.

What is interesting to note is that even when the Conservatives did bring in a bill and finally tabled it in the House, they continued to be committed to a levy on blank CDs and tapes. Why did they do that? They did that because they know it works. They know it takes revenue and puts it into the pockets of the artists who created that music. It supplemented artists' income in a really appropriate way.

The infrastructure is already in place for that kind of system. I would say it makes sense for us to keep up with the technology and extend it to these kinds of audio recording devices. If the Conservatives are so opposed to this kind of levy, why did they include it in their own legislation?

[Committees of the House, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has brought forward this concurrence motion today. I am also pleased that she spoke favourably about the work of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and his private member's bill, which is very similar to the report that came out of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The New Democrats strongly support this report and strongly supported it at the standing committee.

I wonder if the member could comment on the way the Conservatives have characterized this as yet another tax. It is far different from a tax. A levy is far different from the kind of tax increase the Conservatives have put forward, for instance, in Ontario and British Colombia, with the harmonized sales tax.

This levy would be completely dedicated to artists in Canada. The money that would be collected on the levy would go to them as compensation for their work. It would not go into general revenues of the government.

I wonder if she might comment a little more on that.

[Human Rights, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That this House commends the Government of Canada for the clear position it has taken against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently being debated in the Parliament of Uganda and encourages continued direct diplomatic efforts in conjunction with other countries and organizations to see the bill withdrawn, homosexuality fully decriminalized in Uganda, and the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual Ugandans fully respected.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 22nd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I find it a little amazing to hear the member say a number of times that crime legislation was proposed and would have to be reintroduced. I am sure he must be totally frustrated with his own government.

As an opposition member who has very little interest in the Conservatives' crime agenda, in fact I oppose a lot of it, I could not be nearly as effective as the government has been itself in postponing and putting off this legislation either through prorogation or early election calls. As a new Conservative member of Parliament, I am sure he must be completely frustrated with his own government.

I wonder how he would respond to the suggestion that it is the Conservatives who are short-circuiting their own agenda and the opposition is incredulous that they are doing it to themselves.

[Homelessness, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games just ended and there is a new movement that is calling Canadians to take the incredible spirit shown in support of the games and assume a new challenge.

“Two Worlds - Share the Gold” was launched at First United Church Mission, in Vancouver. It calls for harnessing the same talents, the same enthusiasm, the same resources that went into hosting the games and directing them to ending homelessness as it relates to poverty, emotional trauma, addiction and mental health.

I was honoured to participate in the launch, which brought together supporters and opponents of the Olympics to make a joint call for this new commitment. Just as significant financial resources, the political will of all three levels of government and the efforts of thousands of volunteers came to be focused on putting on the games, Share the Gold organizers are challenging political, community and business leaders to organize to address the Olympian challenge of homelessness.

Ending homelessness now, now demands our attention. Let us rise to the challenge and share the gold.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada used to play a very significant role in the whole question of ending nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. We used to have an ambassador for disarmament who had an advocacy mandate as part of its role. Sadly, that is no longer part of the role for the ambassador for disarmament. Folks like, in the past, Douglas Roche and Peggy Mason, had that mandate and did considerable work in raising awareness and contributing to the whole movement toward nuclear disarmament.

The position still exists and it is staffed by very able and dedicated public servants, but, sadly, they do not have that advocacy role and it should be restored.

There is still significant participation by Canadians in non-governmental organizations working toward this goal, but Canada's capacity to participate in the various negotiations has declined. We do not have the public service capacity that we used to. Canada was recognized in the past as a significant player in the whole question of verification of the reduction of nuclear arms. Sadly, we have lost that capacity in some regard now. We have experts but their experience has been underutilized in that area. Canada has not come out in support of initiatives like an Arctic nuclear weapons-free zone. Canada has not endorsed the idea of a negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention.

I am glad there was a mention in the Speech from the Throne on the question of nuclear disarmament and nuclear proliferation but we need to get back on track and we need to put a lot more into that question.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was almost longer than my speech.

I will just pick on one aspect of what the hon. member raised, which is the commitment to child care that is absolutely lacking in the throne speech.

In my community, after housing, the most significant expenditure of any family is child care, and that is even before food. The government's $100 a month, which I think is even taxable, hardly makes any dent in the child care expenses of an average family.

However, in the throne speech and in the most recent budget what assistance is added to that? For the lowest income families, they will get another $3.25 a week toward their child care expenses. I am sure there was dancing in the streets when people heard about that generous contribution toward the child care expenses of Canadians. It amounts to nothing and it is absurd.