Libby Davies

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for his historical comments. It is worth remembering what happened around the auto pact. Canada played by the rules and lost the auto pact as a result of that, and we saw the impact.

There are a lot of ironies in the softwood lumber agreement. Originally, the NDP did not support NAFTA, but we believe, since it is in place, that we should play by the rules. We would like to see that change, but those mechanisms exist for dispute resolution. Yet we have a softwood lumber agreement that is completely negating those rules.

Could the member for Windsor West elaborate on the impact on the loss of jobs? I know he is experiencing that with the auto sector in his community. Now we have a whole new chapter, the lumber industry, which is about to stamped on. Thousands more workers stand to lose their jobs as a result of a very bad agreement and the fact that Canada capitulated and allowed the agreement to go ahead.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having had the opportunity to listen to the debate over the last number of days on Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. A number of members have spoken about the impact on their own communities of job losses and the impact on their local economies. This is something that needs to be brought to the forefront.

One of the concerns we have about the bill is that it is not based on any kind of coherent industrial strategy. We have an agreement that basically violates all the procedures and processes that we have in place under our trade agreements and it puts people's backs to the wall in terms of signing it, but it is not part of any coherent strategy that is based on sustainability, on value added jobs and on ensuring the strength of local economies.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that in terms of how this is an isolated agreement that is not connected to a broader industrial strategy that is needed in this country.

[Privilege, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the member for Windsor—Tecumseh because I think this is a very important matter for all members. We are the guardians of Parliament. If we do not act, speak out and protect the measures and processes we have in place, then they will fall by the wayside.

I would like to draw to the Chair's attention page 51 of Marleau and Montpetit, which makes this clear. It states:

The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties. It is only within this context that privilege can be considered an exemption from the general law.

This is the point I want to stress. It states:

Members are not outside or above the law which governs all citizens of Canada. The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.

This is precisely the point we want to make today. Members before us came to this place to debate that legislation back in 1990, with the due process that was given then, on behalf of the electors of Canada. It was duly passed. For it now to be thrown asunder and just written out with a stroke of a pen I think violates every sense of democracy and decency we have and really does affect our privileges.

I hope you will consider the arguments put before you today, Mr. Speaker, and consider that the government has created a wrong. It needs to be addressed by the Speaker. The due processes and traditions of this place need to be upheld.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from members of the public in Vancouver who wish to draw to the attention of the House their concern about the need for protection of children from sexual predators.

The petitioners ask that this be a top priority for the federal government. The petitioners are very concerned about young people who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and have signed a petition to that effect calling on the House to protect these vulnerable members of our society from harm. I am pleased to present this petition today.

[Maher Arar, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that the government continues to shame itself by refusing to apologize to Maher Arar and, even sadder, no one has been held accountable.

The accountability bill has provisions for a public prosecutor. Will the government commit today that the first investigation by the public prosecutor will be into possible breaches of the Security of Information Act by ministers of the former Liberal government?

[Maher Arar, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one full week since the public inquiry confirmed the injustices experienced by Maher Arar and his family. At the time, the member for Malpeque, then solicitor general, stood in this House time and time again and claimed that the RCMP had done no wrong. It was his responsibility to stop the illegal leaks and to speak out publicly.

Why is the government dragging its feet? Why is no one assuming ministerial responsibility for this tragic case?

[Afghanistan, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The government's plan, even around reconstruction, is not working. This is the evidence coming from the field. Why is the government still telling Canadians that this is the game plan? Even today General Hillier offered his very deflated outlook on the current plan.

First, the government says that it is two years maximum. Then it says that it is five years minimum. Then we have the Prime Minister who says that it could be a lot longer. All the while we have officials who are saying that reconstruction is not taking place and victory through counter-insurgency is certainly not possible.

When will the government admit that this unbalanced mission has no clear--

[Afghanistan, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we can see the Conservative government getting more desperate in its position on Afghanistan.

Today we have further evidence that Canada's mission is on the wrong track. Reports from Kandahar city prove that the provincial reconstruction team is not doing much reconstruction at all. Lieutenant Colonel Hetherington admits that he has “few concrete results”.

If reconstruction is working, could the government tell the House and Canadians how many schools, roads and hospitals has the PRT built in Kandahar?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing the comments of the member for Churchill. She spoke about the impact in her riding, particularly on smaller communities, individual families and workers. We do not hear very much about this. We have heard a lot from the government that the deal is supported by the industry. In actual fact, I believe we are looking at very large corporations with their backs to the wall.

As we learn more and more about the agreement, and as the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek pointed out earlier, it seems to be unravelling. I think there is more and more unease and concern of what the impact of this deal will really be.

I am from British Columbia. There is no doubt a huge impact on local communities as a result of this agreement. One of the things that really puzzles me is the agreement does not seem to be based on any industrial strategy, a strategy that looks at Canadian resources in a way that sustains our environment, protects jobs and produces value added products. There is still massive shipment of the export of raw logs in B.C. This deal will accelerate that problem.

Would the member comment on the job loss in her community and what kind of industrial strategy she thinks is required, instead of the softwood lumber agreement, that would actually provide stability to communities in Churchill, communities on the west coast of B.C. and other communities in Canada?

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is the vice-chair of the status of women committee. I was surprised that she chose to only focus on one issue. Maybe she feels that she cannot defend anything else that her government has done.

I want to come back to the pay equity task force report. When the committee received that report last year, all parties on the committee voted to support the pay equity task force report and the need for new legislation because the existing regime is very ineffective. It is a complaint-based model. It is impossible for women to gain pay equity under the existing system. So very clearly, the report laid out the need for new legislation, which her committee adopted.

However, recently, the Conservative minister has now come back with his response to the committee, saying that he was sorry, he was not going to do that. It was not needed. The government is going to have more mediation, more education, more resources, but it is not actually going to adopt these recommendations.

I would like to ask the member if she agrees that the pay equity task force report should be implemented and new legislation is required, as voted by her committee last year?