Bill Siksay

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we raise the whole issue of arctic research. Last summer, a number of New Democrat MPs travelled to Resolute in Nunavut to attend the 50th anniversary open house of the Polar Continental Shelf Project. It is a project that experts from around the world realize is a place where Canada gets it right. We are supporting research and expeditions into the Arctic for which we provide the staging base.

Yet, there was no official political representative from the Canadian government at that important celebration. There were journalists from around the world, from Germany and Japan, but no Canadian government political representative. I think that was a real indication of where that project fit in the government's view.

I wanted to ask my colleague about her mention of the importance of discovery-based research, curiosity-based research, and research based on scientific merit. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has said that politicians are micromanaging research. That is not good. I know the member has an interest in endangered species legislation and concerns about politicians micromanaging that kind of legislation as well. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, since the tabling of the budget and the budget implementation bill, many concerns and questions have been raised in the House about accountability around infrastructure spending, about the $3 billion slush fund, about financial accountability and about political pork-barrelling.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has raised another issue of accountability with regard to research funding in Canada. One of its concerns is it is looking for assurances that funding through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the college and university infrastructure initiatives are judged on the basis of their scientific merit by people in the research community, not by political considerations, not by political priorities established by politicians.

Could the member comment on that suggestion from the Canadian Association of University Teachers?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention in the debate this afternoon.

Over the last number of years we have seen a number of concerns come up around funding for research. We have seen increasing pressure on people doing research in Canada to ensure that their work can be easily commercialized. There has been this whole trend toward the commercialization of research.

We have also seen, certainly around this place, members of Parliament, often from the Conservative Party or its predecessors, the Reform Party, questioning a lot of the curiosity based research that is done in Canada, especially research in the arts and in the humanities where they have often thrown contempt on some of those research projects, mainly by often rehearsing and reciting the titles of certain works that they somehow think are not deserving of research support.

We have also seen recently the Canadian Association of University Teachers calling into question the distribution of research money based on priorities established by politicians and not through scientific merits. The scientists are not as directly involved in this and the latest budget is another indication of the government setting research priorities that have not gone through a rigorous process of determining their scientific merit.

I wonder if the member might comment on the importance of research based on scientific merit.

[Ethics, March 5th, 2009]

It is not closed to the public, Mr. Speaker.

Weeks before this secret settlement was reached, the Prime Minister's lawyer in the Cadman affair abruptly withdrew from the case. This led to speculation. Did he realize that the case could not be won? Was it an ethical issue? The Prime Minister will know that solicitor-client privilege does not prevent him, as the client, from explaining what happened.

Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians the reasons that his lawyer, Mr. Rick Dearden, withdrew?

[Ethics, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, despite attempts by the Conservatives and Liberals to sweep the Cadman affair under the rug, Canadians still have a right to know what really happened. Sadly, the secret deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals appears to be an attempt to leave those questions unanswered.

Given the extremely serious allegations and the weeks of fury they caused in the House, and in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, will the Prime Minister make public all documents that would have been produced as part of the lawsuit?

[Access to Information, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, three long years after the Conservatives promised to table a bill to implement the former Information Commissioner's recommendations to reform access to information, they have failed to act, but New Democrats are getting the job done.

Yesterday, for the fourth time, the member for Winnipeg Centre tabled a bill drafted by the former commissioner.

Will the Conservatives support our bill, or does the government want to move our bill as its own to ensure it finally fulfills its election promise to open up access to information?

[Access to Information, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today's report from the Information Commissioner is a scathing indictment of the government's addiction to secrecy and contempt for accountability.

He said there was a lack of leadership at the highest levels of government. He gave the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the RCMP failing grades of “F”. That is a red alert. He gave the Ministers of Health and National Defence “D” grades.

Has the Prime Minister called these ministers on the carpet for their falling grades, or is he the highest-level barrier to open government and leadership on this issue?

[Petitions, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by many residents of the greater Vancouver area, including some from Burnaby, who are concerned about the safety of bus operators and transit workers.

The petitioners point out that 36% of bus operators and transit workers in 2005 experienced acts of physical violence, and they note that in the Criminal Code there are stiffer criminal penalties for individuals who assault police officers while they are performing their duties. The petitioners are suggesting that people who provide the essential community function of a transit operator or bus driver be similarly protected.

The petitioners call on the House to support the legislative initiative of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster which extends to bus operators and transit workers the same protections under the Criminal Code afforded to police officers assaulted while performing their duties by establishing stiffer penalties for assailants.

[Committees of the House, February 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing this very important topic before the House and for her strong words to us in her speech this morning.

I want to ask her specifically about two groups of women. Lesbians often face an extra burden of violence and abuse in our society because they are women and also because of their sexual orientation. They have been ignored by our society and by further attempts to ensure that they have full equality in our society. Also, transsexual and transgender women do not have explicit protection under Canadian human rights laws. Gender identity and expression is not a specific ground in the act, although there are other provisions, sort of backdoor provisions, to allow complaints to be laid. Transsexual and transgender women face incredible violence. Many transsexual and transgender women are murdered every year around the world. They face very severe discrimination in jobs, in housing and in the provision of identity documents, for instance.

Would the member support adding gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code provisions around sentencing and hate crimes?

[Drug Use Policy, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, people all over greater Vancouver are deeply concerned about gang violence. While tough on crime measures always top the list of potential fixes, there is a growing realization that drug prohibition policies are making the situation worse.

Alcohol prohibition did not work. Many of the same problems now associated with the drug trade were experienced in the United States during its period of alcohol prohibition. Gang violence that often caught innocent citizens, impure and dangerous alcohol sold in black markets, home stills and underground production, untreated addictions and family dislocation were all serious issues.

It took ending prohibition and implementing alcohol control policies to restore respect for the law and make progress on alcohol related social issues.

We must apply what we know to be true. We must move from prohibition to drug control regimes modelled on the experience of alcohol prohibition and control. Bold steps to confront our drug use hypocrisy and end the profitability of illegal drugs will make our communities safer.