Libby Davies

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I know that he supports his government's position on Afghanistan, but I feel that I must ask a question in terms of where the emphasis is from the Canadian government.

The numbers show us that Canada is spending about 10 times the amount on the military combat mission that it is on aid and development. We have now spent over $4 billion on the military mission and really a very small amount in terms of aid and reconstruction. I think it really begs the question in terms of the emphasis of this mission and the fact that Canada is still continuing down the wrong path. I would ask him to comment on why there is such a huge discrepancy in those figures.

Second, I would ask him to comment on the whole issue around detainees. It seems to me that if Canada cannot even deal with the processing of detainees in a credible and proper fashion, and there is no accountability on that issue, then how on earth can we be involved in this kind of engage?

The chaos and the mess that we have, that we even heard in this House today, over this question is something that remains unanswered by the government.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I know he supports the government's position very strongly, but I do have to say that when I listen to my constituents and I hear the concerns that people have, there is a growing concern about Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

It has now gone on for almost six years. That is actually hard to believe, but it is almost six years and there is no end in sight. It began under the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom. The former government led Canada into the conflict. It is now being escalated by the current government.

I heard the hon. member today quoting other sources saying that it would be a mistake to say when it might end and what the exit strategy is, but I really do think that Canadians have a right to know where the government is going on this mission. Right now we are spending about 10 times as much money on combat and the counter-insurgency as we are on aid and development. That concerns Canadians as well.

I would like to ask the member if he could provide some clarity about what the end game is. What will happen in this mission? We have heard varying responses from the government, whether it is the defence minister or the defence department. It has become very chaotic. It has become very confusing.

If this is a mission in which the member and the government believe, I think they have to disclose to the Canadian public where it is going, what the costs will be, and what the exit strategy is. We have never heard that in the House. Maybe he could respond.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park for her very reasoned comments. I think she reflects the very deep concerns that all of us are hearing from people across the country, the growing concern about Canada's involvement in this war.

She posed a very good question. We have repeatedly asked in the House when Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan will end.

We know the motion was passed very narrowly in the House, saying the mission would continue until February 2009. However, all the questions that we have now asked in the House of the defence minister, we have been given us different responses, whether it is 2011, 2015, maybe even to 2020 or 2030. There is no end in sight.

This is very crucial to the debate in terms of what Canada is doing there and what its exit strategy is. Would the member to comment on that?

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on what his understanding is in terms of when this mission will end.

As he is probably aware, in May 2006 there was a vote in the House of Commons to extend this mission to February 2009. It was very narrowly approved by a vote of 149 to 145, so it was a very close vote. A number of Liberals, as we know, voted with the government. We have that on the record.

However, since then we have had very conflicting information from the Minister of National Defence and from military officials who are planning to extend this mission beyond 2009. We have heard 2011, 2015 and even beyond that, so I think it is very important in this debate.

We are calling for withdrawal now, but we would like to hear from the government a very clear position regarding the exit strategy. Is it 2009? Is it beyond that? We hear of these other plans that are in the department that the Minister of National Defence is not able to clarify and provide adequate information to Canadians.

I would ask the hon. member to tell his constituents and all Canadians when this mission will end.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I point out for the secretary of state that the woman about whom she spoke, the advocate for women's rights from Kandahar, Afghanistan, was the same woman who asked for protection and did not receive it. This is a very clear example of where the mission is not working.

I listened to the member's comments. She has said that we are in Afghanistan to defend democracy, equality and women's rights. It seems very incongruous to me that on that basis the Canadian government is spending ten times the amount on the military mission than it is on aid and development and reconstruction. Canada has spent now over $4 billion on the military effort.

The leader of the NDP pointed out earlier, as did the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, who has done a great job on this issue, that the government is now in confusion and chaos about its mission. We get different strategies and timetables about when Canada will be exiting. Why is the secretary of state not answer those questions?

There was a motion in the House—

[National Day of Mourning, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of New Democrats and our leader to honour our sisters and brothers who have lost their lives or suffered injury and illness in the workplace. We stand in solidarity on National Day of Mourning recognized on April 28.

Every day, three working Canadians lose their lives on the job. The Canadian Labour Congress, provincial labour federations and labour councils across Canada have fought hard to bring attention to these issues and the thousands of workers who suffer because of lax safety standards and because efficiency is put above workers' safety and workers' lives.

The CLC first marked the event in 1984 and since then it has grown into a worldwide event observed in over 100 countries.

Approximately one million workplace injuries a year occur in Canada, every seven seconds each working day. Deaths from workplace injury average nearly 1,000 a year. In Canada, one worker is killed every two hours each working day. Deaths from workplace diseases go largely unrecorded and uncompensated. They likely exceed deaths from workplace injuries.

Despite this, many governments are weakening health and safety rules and their enforcement. Back to work legislation and the defeat of anti-replacement worker legislation are examples of how governments are chipping away at workers' rights.

Sadly, last week we learned that a railway worker was killed on the job. Just yesterday, two workers were killed and four others were injured on an oil sands construction site in northern Alberta, all of whom were foreign workers from China. We need to ask why the government is expanding the foreign worker program without real safeguards to prevent exploitation and ensure compliance with working standards.

We can and we must meet the goal of safer and healthier workplaces. Governments and businesses must start chipping away at labour rights. Laws protecting workers' rights must be stronger and they must be enforced.

Workers' rights are human rights and, in respect and honour of the lives lost and the families affected by death, injury and illness in the workplace, the NDP commits today to renew its fight for safe and healthy working conditions for all Canadians. We call on the government to commit to the same.

[Public Safety Officers, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect their fellow Canadians deserve our highest regard. We stand in solidarity with the firefighters who are on Parliament Hill today.

In the last Parliament by a vote of 161 to 112, Parliament voted to establish a national benefit for the families of fallen and permanently disabled firefighters. The motion was put forward by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. We want this motion to be fully implemented.

I have also put forward a motion to establish a federally funded Canadian public safety officer compensation fund payable to the survivors of a firefighter, police or public safety officer killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

We also know that implementation of budget promises for the hazardous materials training program for all first responders is critical to the safety of local communities and the safety of our first responders.

We call on the government to move swiftly on these key issues for firefighters which for too long have remained without action.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has done a lot of work to protect the jobs in his community. I would like him to talk about what we need to do in order to produce value added jobs and to protect the jobs that we have.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I concur that the issue of seniors, particularly single seniors and particularly women who live below the poverty rate--I forget what the percentage rate is but it is very high--are another part of our community who were completely overlooked in the budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is thank God for the NDP that we were here to get at least that amount of money in a previous government budget and then to force the Conservatives to carry it over. I pointed out correctly that there was no new money in the federal budget to deal with the housing crisis across the country. I would correct the member on that point.

One of the things that slipped through in the budget that was of a lot of concern is that the Conservatives have fundamentally changed Canada's drug strategy. I am not talking about prescription drugs, but illicit drugs. They have basically changed the so-called four pillar approach, law enforcement, prevention, treatment and harm reduction, and have dropped harm reduction. It was buried in the budget. This should be a very alarming signal to a lot of the organizations across the country that have worked very hard on harm reduction: things like needle exchanges and the safe injection site in my riding in the downtown east side.

This brings me back to my point that this was very much an ideologically driven budget. The Conservatives have ignored real evidence that is out there in terms of what works. Whether it is on a drug strategy, on a housing investment or on public transit, they have ignored the evidence out there and have basically produced a budget that is at the very core of their political and ideological agenda.

That is why we need to get up and tell the government that its budget is a failure, that it does not work for most of the people I represent. It might contain the odd thing here and there but overall the major points in people's lives, whether it is housing, child care, jobs, EI, dealing with the drug strategy or support for women, none of those things are in the budget.