Bill Siksay

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the minister says he is convinced that turning prisoners over to the Afghan government is not a problem. We heard today that the Afghan human rights commission says that torture is a routine procedure in Afghanistan among police. We have also heard that the U.S. state department has said the same thing. It has said that torture is routine and it includes pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual humiliation and sodomy. I do not know how he can be confident that those issues are being dealt with in Afghanistan.

I also want to ask him about a situation that was publicized about a convert to Christianity who was on trial in Afghanistan recently for converting from Islam. This man was facing imprisonment and even the death penalty for having done this. The international community avoided the whole issue by whisking him out of Afghanistan to Italy.

Could the minister comment on the state of human rights in Afghanistan, which we as Canadians are now defending, given these kind of examples?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I want to come back to the whole question of the treaty that we have with Afghanistan to turn over detainees. This morning on CBC Radio, Professor Amir Attaran from the University of Ottawa law school said, “We are quite sure that Afghanistan tortures detainees. The Afghanistan government in its own Human Rights Commission report this year said that torture continues to take place as a routine part of police procedures. In fact, the U.S. state department says the same thing; that torture is routine in Afghanistan and involves the pulling out of fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, sexual humiliation and sodomy”.

I wonder why the former Liberal government did not seek a treaty equivalent to what the Netherlands has to ensure that Canadian armed forces personnel are not being put in danger of being accused of war crimes for turning over detainees to the Afghani government in this kind of circumstance.

[Immigration, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, concerns have also been raised by the Portuguese, Pakistani and Caribbean communities about deportations of undocumented workers. It is estimated that up to 200,000 work in our economy and have families who have integrated into our communities. They are among the most exploited workers in Canada.

Will the Minister of Immigration stop deportations and regularize these workers with an in-Canada program, based on successful employment and health and security checks? Will he ensure that their important contribution to Canada is not lost?

[Immigration, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister, on the matter of border issues with the United States, said: “However, this is a law passed by Congress. President Bush must respect it”.

In 2001, this Parliament passed a new immigration act which included a provision for a fact-based appeal for refugees through a refugee appeal division. Will the Minister of Immigration and the government do what the Liberal government refused to do and respect the law passed by this Parliament, and immediately implement the refugee appeal division?

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very helpful intervention in the debate on Bill C-44. I think he made some very important points. In particular, I was impressed with the point he made about effective agencies that enforce consumer legislation but enforce concerns about takeovers and amalgamations of airline companies, about advertising of airlines and those kinds of things, and how he linked that to our concern about Investment Canada and other agencies of the federal government that do not seem to do the job that they are set up to do.

We have seen how the Terasen deal that he mentioned has been solidly opposed by British Columbians who are concerned about what it means for an important natural resource, what it means for a company that was a public company in British Columbia for many years. It is so important, especially when we look at the fact that Terasen has an interest in water systems in some of our major cities.

We have seen 8,000 people in British Columbia file complaints with the B.C. Utilities Commission that decided that public hearings were not necessary. That is another example of a completely ineffective government agency that does not do its job and does not meet the concerns of citizens, so I am very glad that he raised that in conjunction with the bill.

I am also glad that he raised the situation of Canadians with disabilities because I know that it is something that he has worked hard on in Parliament but also before he was elected to Parliament. I wonder if he might just expand a little more on the concerns that Canadians with disabilities have about our transportation systems and how the bill does nothing to address those concerns.

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was interesting, particularly when she described the efficacy of the Canadian Transportation Agency in dealing with consumer concerns. She had concerns about whether this agency would exercise the new powers that are included in the act. She also said she thought that a major consumer organization said that the powers it had were too timid. That is a very serious concern for me.

We do need effective consumer protection. I have seen a number of Canadian agencies that are like the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which has proven completely ineffective in terms of serving telecommunications workers in my riding who were locked out by the TELUS corporation. They won quite a number of judgments at the CIRB regarding bargaining in bad faith, yet none of them were enforced.

I have heard complaints by the steelworkers about the lack of community input and representation on an agency such as the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

We have heard concerns from members of ACTRA about the CRTC and its inability to stand up for Canadian content regulations and how important that is to workers in that industry.

Could the member comment further on how this agency might be made truly effective in dealing with the kinds of consumer issues that confront air travellers in Canada?

[Transportation Amendment Act, November 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his service here. I visited his constituency about a year ago and he was one of the people who welcomed me and some of my colleagues, and I appreciated that.

He sounds like he is keen to run in the next election given his answer to the parliamentary secretary. I think he is having a little difficulty separating himself from the job and the campaign.

It is hard to understand what difficulties he would have with respect to increased funding for post-secondary education, affordable housing, foreign aid, environmental measures, and worker protection. I am baffled by his response to the better balanced budget that the New Democrats put forward. I am baffled by the Conservatives response to the investments that were achieved for Canadians in that budget.

I have two questions for him about this legislation. Part of this legislation deals with an amendment to the Railway Safety Act. The amendment would set up a public complaints process for security officers employed by the railway. Concern has been expressed in the past about the lack of a public complaints process regarding security officials for railways. This process has been called for for many years. I wonder if he could comment on that.

The bill proposes a streamline approval process for the construction of new international bridges or tunnels. I often get nervous when I hear about streamlining around major development proposals, especially those in heavily populated areas or rural areas where there might be concern about land going out of agricultural production, or in neighbourhoods where a new bridge or tunnel could cause havoc for life in that neighbourhood. Certain neighbourhoods in Windsor are facing that kind of situation with respect to the proposal to improve the border crossing there.

I wonder if he could comment on those two aspects of the legislation.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-364, the trade compensation act. I want to compliment the member from northern Alberta for introducing this bill. It is an important contribution to the discussion that we have had around the softwood lumber dispute. In the first hour of debate our party's trade critic spoke in favour of this bill.

The bill is an act to provide compensation to Canadian industry associations and Canadian exporters who incur financial loss as a result of unjustified restrictive trade actions by foreign governments which are signatories to trade agreements involving Canadian products. It is in response to the softwood lumber situation that we have had recently in Canada.

Unfortunately, Canadians have seen that the Liberal government has done nothing to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. It has hung workers and their families out to dry. It has hung Canadian communities out to dry. It has hung exporters and industry associations out to dry with the legal expenses they have incurred over this dispute.

Four million dollars a day bleeds to the U.S. due to the illegal tariffs imposed on Canadian lumber. This is not a new occurrence; it has been going on for years. Over $5 billion has been illegally collected by the United States, despite Canada having won judgment after judgment, including NAFTA's binding dispute resolution mechanism.

It is not just an issue of timeliness in trade negotiations, as the parliamentary secretary would like us to believe. It is a question of whether or not these agreements are working at all to the benefit of Canadians, or working as they were intended to work.

We have also heard concerns that the Liberal government may be prepared to bargain away some of that $5 billion to negotiate with the Americans on the issue of how much is exactly owed to Canadians because of this dispute. It is appalling if that willingness is there. That money is owed to Canadians and should be paid. This agreement should be made to work the way it was intended to work.

We have heard that exporters and industry associations have had to ante up $350 million for their legal fees because of this dispute. We agree that assistance should be offered to them given this extraordinary situation, given the U.S.'s intransigence on the issues around softwood lumber and given the inaction of the Liberal government.

It was only today, days before the fall of the Liberal government, that an aid package was announced around softwood lumber. Unfortunately, it is too little, too late. It is hard to believe that this dispute has gone on for years, that it has affected communities the way it has, that it has affected workers the way it has, that it has affected businesses the way it has, and it was only today, days before the fall of the government, that we heard about some measures to deal with the situation. That is not acceptable. This has been an urgent priority for many Canadians, particularly British Columbians. To have it ignored until this late time is absolutely unacceptable. It is another reason that I think British Columbians, and not just members of the opposition here in the House, lack confidence in the government,.

British Columbia has been hard hit by the softwood lumber dispute. As I said, jobs have been lost. I heard the other day from a member of the B.C. legislature that at least 17 mills have closed recently. Family incomes have been shattered. There has been economic fallout for other businesses. The economic well-being of many communities in the interior of British Columbia depend on the lumber industry. We have seen those businesses badly affected by this dispute.

What did the Liberals do? They made a few phone calls, after taking months to find the President's number. President Bush did not get a phone call for many months. Many times in the House members of the opposition rose to urge the Prime Minister to take some action. He put off that phone call for many months. He could not find the phone number, I suppose.

What is the Prime Minister doing now? He said that he raised the issue with the President and that he raised it at the recent APEC meeting. What is doing now? He is threatening more talk. As my leader said in the House the other day, it seems the only weapon the Liberals have to wield in this dispute with the United States is a broken record that threatens more talk and the same talk over and over again.

That is just not acceptable. The people in British Columbia know this is not an acceptable way of resolving this dispute. People in British Columbia have close ties to the United States. They know what it means to live next door to the U.S. They want action. They are not afraid of standing up to the Americans and saying that this situation is unacceptable. They are not afraid of taking some action that would press the Americans and show them that we are serious about this. British Columbians are not afraid, for instance, of a levy on our energy exports. They know that would get the attention of the Americans in this dispute.

People in British Columbia also are not afraid of raising the whole issue of the takeover of Terasen gas utility by the Americans and putting some restrictions on that. We have the third largest utility in Canada being taken over by Kinder Morgan, an American company, without a protest from Canada. That is despite the fact that over 8,000 British Columbians wrote to the B.C. Utilities Commission to raise serious questions about the takeover of this company, a company that was for many years a public company in British Columbia. For many years, it was prevented from being owned by foreign interests. That was all changed by the current B.C. Liberal government.

Those who wrote to the B.C. Utilities Commission called for action on this and for public hearings. The B.C. Utilities Commission dismissed all their questions and refused to hold public hearings.

We were hopeful that the federal government, through Investment Canada, through the Foreign Investment Review Agency, might take some action as well, but alas, it too caved and said that there was no reason this takeover should not go ahead. It is typical. Eleven thousand takeovers have happened with absolutely no action by Investment Canada. I guess it was a false hope on our part that maybe at this point it would have found the courage to act on behalf of Canadians and in the interests of Canadians.

Many Canadians are worried about this takeover, not only because Terasen is the major oil and gas pipeline and a major provider of gas to over 800,000 customers in B.C. and Alberta. They also are worried because of its interest in water systems in our municipalities. Terasen owns the municipal water systems in over a dozen municipalities in Canada, notably those in Calgary and Kelowna. Many British Columbians and Canadians are worried about the foothold a foreign-owned company, Kinder Morgan, would have on our water systems in Canada and what that would mean in terms of free trade and control of our water resource.

Very serious issues surround the takeover of Terasen. We have protested it in the New Democratic Party. Many British Columbians have protested it. The NDP caucus in the B.C. legislature has worked hard on this and has protested it there. We believe this is one of the areas where our government could have chosen to exercise some pressure on the United States. That pressure could have led to a resolution of the problems on softwood lumber. Without some kind of action on the part of Canada, more than just talk, the Americans will not budge. We all know that is the reality of our relationship with the United States.

Last summer the NDP asked that Parliament to be recalled early to deal with the crisis in softwood lumber. We were prepared to come back from our constituencies to get to work here in the House to resolve this issue. The Liberals rejected that suggestion and nothing was done.

We called for energy levies and nothing was done. We called for an end to the NAFTA-plus negotiations. We are in a situation where the government is actively negotiating an extension of the NAFTA. What kind of craziness is that, when the current agreement is not working for Canadians in such a dramatic fashion?

We believe the bill is an important contribution to the whole discussion around the softwood lumber dispute and that it makes an important suggestion about how assistance might properly be provided to companies that are badly affected by this. We are prepared to see that go forward and be discussed further.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about some of the economic concerns of families in her riding of Durham. I know that people in my constituency are concerned about the rate of poverty in Canada. Today we had the Campaign 2000 report card on child poverty in Canada. It points out that there are still over a million children in Canada living in poverty and that 48% of those children live in families where the parents are actually working. The report also points out that 49% of immigrant children in Canada are living in poverty as well. These are damning statistics.

I wonder if the member might comment on those statistics and comment. For me, this is a real issue of confidence in the government's inability to deal with the whole issue of poverty in Canada, when we see it rising. Would the member comment on that?

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. Unfortunately, all the criteria about which she complained and about the timing of the election, could have been solved had the Liberals been prepared to compromise and work in the context of a minority Parliament, and not pretend that they had a huge majority from Canadians to do whatever they wanted to do.

We could have heard the second Gomery report if the Prime Minister had accepted the opposition proposal. We would have heard the second Gomery before the election date. We could have dealt with legislation right up until the Christmas recess. We could have gone through a lot of legislation till then, but the Liberals were unwilling to compromise so we will be unable to do that.

We could have had more legislation on the agenda. The parliamentary secretary knows full well that the citizenship legislation to which she referred was delayed and delayed. It was promised months and months ago. Then finally when we get it at the last minute, it is only a small portion of what was promised originally.

We could have avoided a holiday campaign by accepting the opposition proposal for an election called in January to be held in February. That would have met all her complaints, but her government, her Prime Minister, were not willing to join the compromise and realize that Canadians had only given them a minority government, not a majority government. I hope she can comment on that.