Libby Davies

[Business of the House, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the government House leader or the Speaker would make it clear to all members of the House what the standing order is that the government House leader is trying to introduce at this point. It would be helpful to all members if he would explain what he is trying to do in terms of this procedure.

We know that Conservatives are trying to prevent debate and put closure on Bill C-28, but we would appreciate, first of all, seeing a copy of the motion. I believe all members of the House should have a copy of the motion in both official languages. I would ask the government House leader or the Speaker to make clear what motion is being put before the House at this time.

[Women At Risk, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, I express our deep sympathy to and support for the families, friends and communities of Vancouver's missing women. They have suffered terrible losses and a long, arduous trial.

Many troubling issues remain. Why did so many women go missing? Why are sex workers in particular at such great risk? Why are these women disproportionately aboriginal?

The verdict for these women must compel us to act, to seek answers and to make changes that will minimize the risk and harm that sex workers face.

In memory of all the women who have gone missing across Canada, we demand action from the government to repeal harmful laws, improve police training, and ensure basic human rights are met, such as affordable housing, a living wage, social supports, and an end to poverty and violence.

We call for a public inquiry into the policing issues surrounding the missing women. No person in our society should experience the danger and harm that these women faced.

Changes must be made at every level so that the women who are at risk today will not be at risk tomorrow.

[An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, it really comes down to some sort of risk and gamble as to whether or not we believe that AECL will be up and running without this legislation or whether or not there will be some other requirement or some requirement that it does meet and Parliament will have recessed. There will be nothing then that allows AECL to get up and running with this particular set of conditions that is contained in the legislation that is before us tonight.

I really feel that is what the bottom line is here, to get an assurance that this facility will be up and running and that this legislation will ensure that it happens because Parliament will not be sitting.

We have still not been given tonight an assurance that without the legislation that it will be up and running. If we total up the days we are talking about two days for a safety case, three days approval by the commission, three days possibly for start up, four days for low yield, and three days normal period of some products. We are looking at maybe another two weeks plus minimum when we may or may not see this reactor up and running.

I think from that point of view we have to really look at the risk here and ensure that if this legislation is required that there is a provision where AECL can get up and running even if Parliament is not here, a provision for regular reporting back to the House, and the provision that the commission still has all of the regular oversight that it has always had and that it will continue to have.

[An Act to permit the resumption and continuation of the operation of the National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, following up what was said by the member for Vancouver Island North I think we need to have this matter, whatever happens tonight, referred to a committee for adequate follow-up because there are obviously many questions about whether or not the ministers were notified in time and what action they then did or did not take.

Here we are at the eleventh hour with a crisis and there are a whole bunch of questions that we do not really have the answers to. I think it just reiterates our request that this must go to a committee for a full follow-up and review about exactly what took place here.

I want to come back to the central question. I have been listening to the discussion all night and there have been some very good questions and some very good observations. All members of the House, no matter what party they are from, have two overriding concerns. One is the safety of the operation of the nuclear reactor and the other is the safety and the health of Canadians who desperately need these isotopes.

I think it is fair to say that we have it clear on the record tonight that the role of the commission is intact. I think there was some questioning here that suggested that somehow everything would be thrown out the window and we would have no regulatory oversight.

We have established that this legislation before us tonight exempts AECL only for up to 120 days, so it is a maximum of 120 days. It could be less than that depending on how long it takes to get up and running. It is only an exemption for the motor starters and the connections to the emergency power supply. It has nothing to do with the rest of the operation. It is that limited basis that we are talking about tonight, and that has been put on the record.

We have also had an agreement from the government that it will agree that there should be regular reports from AECL every 30 days, hopefully it could be more frequent than that, to the House so that there can be a regular updating of what goes on.

The issue comes down to this. How quickly is this operation going to get up and running, and whether or not this legislation is required? We have heard the questioning from the Liberals sort of trying to explore whether or not in and of themselves they can get this going. I do not think that has been fully answered.

We have heard that as of Thursday evening there could be a safety plan put forward, but we have not yet had a clear answer from the commission as to how long it would take it to deal with that safety plan and then how long would it take after that to actually get that plan operational, and get this reactor up and running so that these isotopes can be in full use for Canadians. That is the question we have to get at.

If we are told it is a week, or maybe it will be nine days or maybe 12 days, I do not know, but if that does not happen, what will happen next? This House will have to be reconvened. At that point we will have an operator that is not within the licence requirement and there will be nothing to allow it to get up and running.

I feel that is the question we have to get at here. We have to find out precisely what the shortest time and the longest time frame is that without this legislation this operation can get up and running. More exactly, with this legislation we at least have a precaution and an allowance in place that if it does not happen, this legislation would at least allow up to 120 days, including the regular oversight that the commission has.

I would like the commission to be much more forthright and clear in its answer as to what the timelines are that we are talking about in terms of what can be done if this legislation is not approved tonight.

[Points of Order, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

During the last federal election campaign, the New Democratic Party of Canada publicized allegations made by our candidate in Abbotsford, B.C., Mr. Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson, of an attempt to bribe him in the course of the election.

We also arranged for Mr. Hansen-Carlson to repeat these allegations to the media across Canada on January 13, 2006. These allegations were specifically made against the candidate of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. David Oliver, and his campaign manager, Mr. Gordie Kahlon.

A press release was issued claiming that Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon should be investigated for breaching section 481 of the Canada Elections Act.

These allegations should never have been made public, nor should we have encouraged Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson to repeat them without having done appropriate due diligence to check the factual basis and the law surrounding these allegations.

The New Democratic Party admits that we seriously erred in making the allegations public, and in putting a young and inexperienced candidate in the position where he felt justified in making those allegations and to repeat them on some 40 occasions to media across Canada. There were never any facts to support an allegation of bribery or attempted bribery.

As a result of our allegations and actions, David Oliver was dismissed by the former Prime Minister of Canada as the Abbotsford candidate of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The NDP formally apologizes to them, their friends, families, political supporters and, in particular, the voters of Abbotsford, who cast their votes while the candidate's character and conduct had been improperly put under a cloud by our campaign team's actions.

The NDP made another serious error in judgment. On January 23, 2006, the senior counsel for the Commissioner of Canada Elections sent a letter to us in response to a letter written by Mr. Eric Hebert to Elections Canada on January 13, 2006. We should have made it public immediately upon receiving it.

The result was that Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon remained under a cloud of suspicion far longer than was appropriate. We erred in not making that letter public immediately and we acknowledge that.

Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon have been paid damages by our party to resolve the lawsuit.

In addition, we want to make this public apology in the House of Commons to put into Hansard our acknowledgement of very serious errors and to set the matter right.

As deputy leader, I am not satisfied with the manner in which this was handled. The NDP now has a procedure to ensure all due diligence in matters of fact and law.

I am pleased to say that I have met with Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon. This statement in the House of Commons is for them and their families.

I wish Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon the best for their future in private and in public life, and wish to assure the House, Canadians and the voters of Abbotsford that this kind of incident will not be repeated again by the New Democratic Party of Canada.

[Points of Order, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, listening to the opposition whip and the government whip, that certainly the member for London—Fanshawe will at the earliest opportunity be in the House to make an apology. Therefore, I just want to confirm that indeed that will happen.

[Britannia Secondary School, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the staff and students, present and past, of Britannia Secondary School in my riding of Vancouver East.

This year, Britannia Secondary celebrates an incredible 100 years of serving the Grandview-Woodland neighbourhood. This diverse and vibrant school has been a role model of inclusiveness, tolerance and respect for students, staff and parents alike. It continues to set and meet high standards for all the important ingredients that create a healthy and strong community. The contribution that the staff and students of Britannia have made to our community are immeasurable.

As the oldest remaining secondary school in Vancouver, Britannia has been graduating responsible, productive and engaged citizens and members of our community since 1908 and I hope will continue to do so for many years.

I am delighted to wish Britannia Secondary School a hearty congratulations on its 100 year anniversary. Go Bruins.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the government thinks that people who work on the waterfront are easy targets and so it comes out with these incredibly onerous regulations that require a person-by-person for these elaborate measures to come. However, the reaction to it has been significant. Legal challenges are now under way.

What the member points out is entirely correct. Why is it that we, on the one hand, have substantive security clearance measures being put in place levied against individuals but, on the other hand, the federal government is not actually providing the resources, either in terms of ports police or other security measures, to check the containers that are coming in?

We know that ports of entry are one of the places where the most amount of goods are coming into our country, in fact, probably the most significant, and yet there is virtually nothing in place to deal with that.

It seems like a completely contradictory policy that puts this heavy-handed approach on individual rights and placing the onus on individuals to prove that they do not pose any security risk and opens the door for all kinds of profiling while, on the other hand, the government is not providing the resources to do the inspections that I think would deal with a lot of the concerns in terms of security.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that direction in the bill. The question is, what kind of process will it be?

We know that ports are exempt from municipal zoning because they are under federal jurisdiction. There has been this long-standing struggle in terms of changes in port lands and development and how that takes place.

While it has been recognized over the years that port authorities should consider adjacent municipal zoning, there is nothing that legally requires them to be under municipal zoning, to hold a public hearing. We are all familiar with a municipal public hearing, which is a quasi-judicial process that can then have appeals. Those are some of our concerns.

I understand the direction that the bill lays out, but we want to examine it in great detail. We want to hear from local residents who have some concerns with these very serious issues. We want to look at the bill and see if the changes in the bill deal with the very real questions that they have raised. Let us look at the process. Let us look at how it would unfold. That is what we want to do.

I appreciate the member raising that and we are ready to get into that level of work at the committee.

[Canada Marine Act, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Bloc. She raises additional concerns that our community has about the bill and the way developments are handled.

We face the prospect that potentially port lands will be used for very expensive condominium development. The question of hazardous goods moving through port lands and the impact on the environment and the fish habitat is of concern. I have written some letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to find out whether there will be environmental impact assessments on the fishery habitat because it is so crucial to the community as well.

While there is some acknowledgement of these issues, I feel there has been a lack of real oversight by the government to address the impacts of what some of these changes will be. I can only reiterate the member's concerns and say that we have a fair amount of anxiety and frustration about what changes will take place and whether there will be any kind of adequate process to ensure that people's concerns are heard. These concerns include dangerous goods, transportation, the impact on the environment and if we will see a massive sale of so-called surplus lands in port lands that will then be used for things like very high priced condominium development. I think residents can see this will have a major impact on their local communities.

All these issues have drawn our attention to the bill, but I see that as one good thing. At least we are getting a chance to talk about it. I hope, when we get the bill to committee, we can bring forward witnesses, including people from local communities who live next door to a port, who see these issues on a daily basis, to explain the difficulties they experience in getting information and understanding the process to deal with these concerns.

I appreciate the member raising these issues and I certainly share them.