Libby Davies

[Oil and Gas Industry, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, if that is all that the government can come up with, it is pretty pathetic because it is still defending its subsidies to the oil industry.

In fact, just yesterday the town of Fort McMurray voted unanimously to place a moratorium on the oil sands development until an infrastructure plan is developed. The people of Fort McMurray, like all Albertans and all Canadians, want their tax dollars spent wisely and want to see greenhouse gases reduced. The government's corporate welfare for the oil industry does neither.

Again I ask the government, when will it end this corporate subsidy to the oil industry and re-direct that money to seniors, kids and Canadians who really need it?

[Oil and Gas Industry, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the inane behaviour of these two parties today, let us go back to something that really concerns Canadians. The Minister of Finance has recently sent a letter to environmental groups defending his decision to continue the Liberal legacy of subsidizing the oil industry.

Can the government explain how in a time when the UN is condemning Canada for the widening gap between rich and poor, when over a million children live in poverty and seniors cannot afford the care they need, it cannot find the money to address these pressing issues, but can find $1.4 billion a year to subsidize the most profitable and polluting industry in this country?

[The Environment, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that Canadians are still waiting to see this plan that is talked about every day. We have seen no shred of evidence of it. The government is still listening to the oil industry when it needs to listen to the vast majority of the scientific community, indeed listen to its own officials. The only people who do not believe the science are the big polluters and the people on the government's front benches.

I ask again, when will the government stop debating the science and start tabling a plan to tackle climate change? Canadians want a commitment and they want to hear about a plan, not more talk from the government.

[The Environment, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over a month since the Prime Minister received a letter from Canada's top climate change scientists calling on him to take action on the environment. The letter stated, “There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world”.

Just today we heard that the federal government's own scientists are considering walking away from their careers because the government puts politics over science.

Could the Prime Minister tell us, does he believe in the science showing the growing effects of climate change and if he does not, what information is he using to refute that?

[Canada Labour Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today as the labour critic for the NDP to speak in support of the bill put forward by the Bloc Québécois. We are very happy that this bill is in the House. Indeed, I seconded the bill, as did many of my colleagues in the NDP. As the member from the Bloc has said, this is a repeat effort to bring this very important issue forward in Parliament to ensure that the rights of workers are secured in this country where they are federally regulated.

I want to say on behalf of the NDP we understand that freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to strike are fundamental labour rights in Canada. In fact, these are hard won rights that historically workers have died for in some cases. The issue in the bill we are debating today is fundamental and central to the rights of workers in Canada, and that is the use of strikebreakers.

Labour rights are a human right. Workers have the right to withhold their services if collective bargaining fails. Fair wages, a safe workplace, pay equity, health care and pensions are all hard fought achievements of the labour movement and collective bargaining. However, there is still a glaring omission, and that is that there is no adequate federal provision to ensure that the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is banned in this country.

I heard the Minister of Labour earlier today raise the question as to whether this proposed bill is good. Yes or no, he asked. He went on to point out that workers want to have rules that are fair. He said that we need to strike a balance between the rights of employers and the rights of unions. I have to ask the minister, is it fair when members of a union have legally gone on strike, they should have their right to strike completely undermined by the use of strikebreakers? I do not think this is a fair situation whatsoever. There is nothing balanced about that. There is nothing that is balanced in the favour of workers.

In fact, the provisions presently in the Canada Labour Code are very inadequate. If they were adequate, we would not be debating this bill today.

We have to be very clear that we are dealing with the fundamental issue of the rights of workers and the fact that when workers go on a legal strike, they have an expectation and a right to assume that the rules will be fair and balanced. We believe it is very important that federal legislation affecting workers under federal jurisdiction acknowledge the right to expect that strikebreakers will not be allowed.

We have already heard that in British Columbia and Quebec this legislation is working in the provincial jurisdictions. We can point out very clearly that when legislation like this is in place, we actually see an environment that produces labour stability. The government in British Columbia is not a progressive government. It is a centre right government, yet it understands that this provision in the B.C. labour code is something it would not dare touch because it has brought stability to the workplace in British Columbia.

By contrast, the very nasty TELUS labour dispute and the lockout of TELUS workers went on month after month in B.C. This was a huge issue. One of the reasons it went on for so long is that those workers were under federal regulation and there was nothing to protect them from the use of strikebreakers, contracting out and out sourcing jobs. It made the strike go on much longer.

There is also the example of Vidéotron in Quebec. There is the example of the CBC. I would add another one.

Last weekend I was very fortunate to travel to Yellowknife to participate with members of PSAC and the Union of Northern Workers who have now been on strike for about 60 days against a huge multinational corporation, BHP, which has refused to negotiate in good faith. One of the big issues in that strike in Yellowknife is the use of contractors, which really are replacement workers or strikebreakers.

Again we see an example where workers have legally gone on strike. In this case they are trying very hard to get a first collective agreement. They are up against a massive multinational corporation, the Australian BHP Billiton that had worldwide profits of $7.5 billion in 2005. This is a very powerful corporation. What tools do these workers have to ensure that they get a fair collective agreement if they are constantly being undermined in their right to strike by the use of what the employer calls contractors but in effect are strikebreakers?

That is a very recent example of where if there were adequate provisions in the Canada Labour Code for federally regulated workers, we would be protecting the rights of those workers at the diamond mine in the Northwest Territories. I want to congratulate the member for Western Arctic for the strong stand he has taken to uphold these very fundamental rights of the members of the Union of Northern Workers, Local 3050. They are taking on a very difficult struggle.

I would love to be able to say that this legislation is going to go through so that we can ensure that the kind of situation that is taking place in that strike in the Northwest Territories does not have to be repeated in any other situation where federal regulation occurs.

I want to make one other point. Clearly, 100% of the members of the NDP will be supporting Bill C-257. In fact, I mentioned Bill C-295 earlier which is our own bill against strikebreaking. The member for Vancouver Island North has brought that bill forward. We will be debating that bill also. We want Bill C-257 to go to committee. We want discussions to take place to strengthen the bill. The Canadian Labour Congress has a very intensive campaign under way. The NDP will be participating in that campaign. I want to say that we are going to get this bill through.

It was such a huge disappointment and quite appalling that in the last Parliament virtually the same bill was lost by less than a dozen votes. Members in the House had better be aware that there will be a very active campaign undertaken on this bill for anti-scab legislation.

I heard the member from the Liberal Party. Of course the Bloc will support the bill because it is the Bloc's bill. The NDP will support the bill. There were Conservative members in the last Parliament who supported the bill. We are hoping very much that members of the Liberal caucus will also support this bill.

We have this opportunity in this Parliament to actually do something that will make a real difference in the lives of workers and protect their rights. Passage of the bill would actually produce a stability and a benefit for the whole community and the economy.

We are very glad that this issue is before the House today. We want Bill C-257 to go through as quickly as possible. We want to encourage individual members of Parliament to be open to factual, objective information, instead of taking an ideological position. We want members to look at this bill on its real merits and how it actually supports labour management industrial relations stability. That is the evidence that is before us, despite what the Minister of Labour told us today.

This type of legislation has been in effect in Quebec since 1977. It has been in effect in British Columbia since 1993. It has actually helped to produce stability. If we can manage to get this bill through the House for those workers under federal jurisdiction, then we should be leading the way to say to other provinces that they should be bringing in similar legislation at the provincial level.

In closing, the NDP is happy this bill is being debated. I would encourage members to support the bill. The bill is very important. We want this bill to be enacted and have a majority of support in the House. We were so close the last time. We want to make sure that the bill passes this time and goes to committee so that we can have a discussion. We can look at amendments, but to support the bill in principle is something that is very important. The NDP caucus will support the bill 100%.

[Canada Labour Code, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I realize that you have heard from the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, but it is an important point of order so I would also like to make a brief comment. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because I know that members actually want to get into the substance of the debate about this very important bill.

I want to say that the ruling made about the royal recommendation certainly affects this bill, Bill C-257, but it also will affect the NDP bill being put forward by the member for Vancouver Island North, Bill C-295, which is similar in nature, dealing as it does with anti-scab legislation. It would also, according to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, require a royal recommendation.

The ruling that was made is in effect being challenged because these two bills are based, as we have heard, on an earlier bill, Bill C-263 from the Bloc, that did not have this issue or this contradiction of the royal recommendation. We did not hear anything from the Table previously. It was not in question. I think this raises some questions and concerns for us about how the bill previously was not considered to be a problem in terms of a royal recommendation and yet this bill and the NDP bill will now have problems in terms of needing one.

In fact, I would point out that subclauses 2(2.5) through to 2(2.9) in Bill C-257 and Bill C-295 are exactly the same as the previous bill in the former Parliament, Bill C-263, which was debated and voted on without any mention of the royal recommendation. We believe that there is no need for any part of these bills to have a royal recommendation and we believe that the Table and the Speaker got it right in the 38th Parliament.

I would go on to add that even if the first ruling was wrong and this one was right, there is the additional issue that under the labour department, HRSD Canada employs personnel. They are funded from their existing budgets as authorized by the House to monitor compliance and initiate prosecutions when there are serious contraventions of the Canada Labour Code.

I fail to see why those people would not be able to do the work which we are referring to in subclauses 2(2.5) to 2(2.9) of the bill before us today. Really, it is a question of logic. Surely someone who monitors compliance and initiates prosecutions for contraventions of the Canada Labour Code is also able to ascertain if there is compliance to a ban on the use of scabs in a legal strike that extends from a collective bargaining situation.

We fail to see the difference in terms of work which would currently happen under the Labour Code and for which there is authority from the minister, the department and budgetary expenditures. Why would it be any different for the provisions of this bill? Both would involve the same skills and the same basic law.

We believe that the House can decide on the question of a ban on scabs without having to get into the question of how a minister or deputy minister manages their staff. The resources to do a job are already there. Therefore, we believe that Parliament does not need to re-authorize the expenditure even if there is some change in the scope of the duties.

For that reason alone, I would suggest that a royal recommendation is not required for any of the provisions of Bill C-257 or Bill C-295, which will also be debated in the House. I would hope that the Speaker and the Table would agree to stick by their earlier understanding of the former bill, which was not a problem and was not challenged. We are very concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, and we would ask you to consider it.

[Points of Order, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South has made some very legitimate points. Certainly, I do not think anyone in the House wants members to lose an opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill or motion on the basis that they would lose it because of a royal recommendation.

This information was provided yesterday. The Chair made a correct ruling and that is not being disputed. We are trying to deal with what kind of mechanism or process we can agree to, so that members who have bills in the first set of 30 basically are given an opportunity to have some discussion and make some changes.

I agree that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be the place to do that, to work out between the parties a way for members who are affected by the lack of royal recommendation, of which I believe there are 10. Perhaps there could be some accommodation made in the spirit of the Speaker's decision yesterday, but that would ensure that members do not lose their place.

I agree that the discussion should happen, from the point of view of my party, and we would encourage the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to actually do that and arrive at a sensible solution.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather aghast at the question. I cannot conceivably understand how the member would come to the conclusion that we are talking about some form of state control over everything so that Canadians would have no choice. In fact, the opposite is true.

What we need to do is recognize the reality of how telecom and broadcast services are now so integral to cultural expression and to recognize that we need to ensure that domestic cultural rights are not undermined in any of these trade talks that take place based on what Canada has signed onto in the UNESCO Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

This debate is about protecting that diversity of cultural expression both here in Canada and for other countries that have signed on in other parts of the world.

I would argue that the member is very misinformed about what this debate is about or what the conclusion is. It is about protecting Canadian culture and allowing that diversity to happen so it is not completely stifled and overpowered by commercialism that is based on a profit system that is coming basically from the U.S. and from very large conglomerates that will control every system in Canada. That is what he should be worried about.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the reality of how technology is overtaking at a very rapid pace. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' document talks about what the future looks like. It talks about the average house having one unit that has a radio, television, music, films, news, Internet access, e-mail and maybe things we do not even envision yet.

This is broadband and its capacity to send huge amounts of digitized material over a single network should tell us of the urgency of this issue of how the protection and enhancement of Canadian culture is related to these trade negotiations that are going on that are based on telecom services and broadcasting services. These things now are very integral to each other.

It is a warning to us that unless we recognize that reality we will have given up our cultural sovereignty in the race to advance technology and so-called competitiveness that will leave behind cultural expression. I appreciate the member's question because it is precisely because of that point that we are urging our amendment today, which I hope the member will support.

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion. All members of the NDP will be supporting this motion, which deals with the ratification of the UNESCO treaty on the protection and promotion of diversity and of cultural expressions in Canada, an important convention.

However, the amendment put forward by the NDP member for Timmins—James Bay is the operative clause of the whole motion. It insists that the government also provide direction to trade negotiators to ensure that domestic cultural rights are not undermined in any trade talks. While we support the motion, the amendment, which directs our negotiators in terms of upcoming and ongoing trade talks, is very important.

I think a lot of Canadians may wonder what our Canadian culture, what we see on television, read in books and magazines and see in shows, has to do with trade talks. We do not think of culture as a commodity, as a tradable item. The reality is there is a very strong interface between cultural, telecom and broadcasting services. In fact, there have been very serious concerns about whether our cultural rights and sovereignty will be traded away as they become part of larger trade negotiations now taking place under GATS. Many fear this will become a reality. I reference a briefing paper from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It states:

Culture is in need of protection in the trade negotiations because unrestricted competition in this arena would replace local and national cultural expression with powerful international media conglomerates....Culture and telecom are being treated very differently, as if they were distinct...This approach needs to be revisited, because in Canada these two sectors are rapidly merging and becoming inseparable. As a result, trade negotiations to promote more foreign involvement in the provision of telecom services, including foreign ownership, threaten our cultural expression.

We have the link between these two issues and how much our cultural sovereignty is now threatened by the negotiations under GATS. Therefore, the NDP amendment is very important if we are genuinely concerned about protecting and enhancing cultural identity in Canada.

This is a very broad area and it is something that we have spoken about a lot. However, over the last decade we have seen a significant erosion in Canadian culture in the institutions of public delivery and public funding. We have seen a significant erosion of Canadian ownership. There is always a looming threat of these massive conglomerates moving into Canada, commercializing our culture and Americanizing it. I think people are very fearful about the rapid pace at which this is taking place in Canada.

Much of this took place under the Liberal watch. I listened to the speeches of Liberal members who purported to protect Canadian cultural sovereignty. Yet it was under the Liberal government that so much was given away in terms of ownership and public funding.

People spoke today about the lockout at the CBC and the turmoil that our public broadcaster and those who worked for it went through. Why was that? For 13 years we had a Liberal government that did very little to protect those institutions by way of legislation to ensure Canadian content and ownership and most of all to ensure stable, long term funding.

Is it any wonder that we now are moving into a new crisis arena because our culture is being threatened in trade negotiations under GATS? The political talk is there, but we need to see strong institutions. We need to see the funding, the framework, the policies and regulations and the laws that will protect Canadian content.

I am proud to represent the riding of Vancouver East, which is home to many individual artists and community-based organizations. They give us the stories of our lives. They give us community expression and a vision of who we are. They speak to the experiences that we have both locally and nationally. These artists struggle to make a living. Many are working other jobs to support their creative endeavours and many are living below the poverty line. It breaks my heart to see individual artists and organizations surviving on so little. Yet they keep doing their work because they have a dedicated and strong commitment to Canadian artistic expression and our cultural sovereignty.

I not only want to see the motion approved, but I also want to see an environment where we respect the rights and dignity of individual artists and organizations. I want to see support for the call from the Canadian Arts Coalition for a $5 per capita increase for the funding of the arts in Canada. I want to see incentives for artists. They are jammed with enormous taxes on the little amount of income they receive. This is being done very well in the province of Quebec and we need to do it across the country.

I want to see long term stable funding for the CBC. Just a couple of days ago, a news advisory came out about the CBC's television design department being under threat of closure. Why is this happening when we are debating the UNESCO treaty and supposedly the idea that we support protecting and promoting the diversity of culture in Canada? Why would we close that department? It has had a long history of protecting and enhancing original programming in our country? This measly cost saving measure of $1 million will have a significant impact on original productions in Canada.

The debate today is important. If we are serious, we need to pass the motion. We also need to ensure that the amendment put forward by the NDP is adopted. We need to give clear direction to the trade negotiators, who are acting on behalf of Canada, to ensure that they do not negotiate away our cultural sovereignty as part of so-called competitiveness.

I am glad to support the motion today, but it is just a first step. We need to do much more to ensure that we support our artists, our cultural institutions and bilingualism in public broadcasting. We need to support organizations like the CBC to ensure they are not threatened each and every year by what the government plans on doing. Otherwise we will find ourselves in a void. We will find ourselves in a country which has lost its identity, its cultural expression and its voice. These issues are important in protecting our identity.