Libby Davies

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member has given us some very thoughtful comments tonight. I do not think that we should be allowing Canada to be dragged into a U.S.-style military combat role in Afghanistan, nor should we be supporting George Bush's failing strategy on the war against terrorism.

I do find it ironic, to say the least, that the Conservatives' motion tonight is couched in terms of women's equality and human rights. They have not exactly been the greatest champions of rights for women or human rights generally here in Canada or elsewhere. We also know that tonight we have heard from Afghan women in Canada who are very concerned about this mission because it is increasing violence and instability. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[Pay Equity, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to congratulate our sisters and brothers in the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada on their historic pay equity settlement with Bell Canada. These 4,700 telephone operators, dining service and house service workers, almost all women, bravely and patiently brought pay equity to the forefront of the struggle for equality for women workers in Canada.

CEP took on this fight in 1992, when women earned 30% less than their male counterparts. This victory, a $104 million pay equity settlement, is a victory for all women in this country, but let us not forget that two years ago the former Liberal government released a pay equity report recommending new legislation to protect equal pay for work of equal value. Yet nothing has been done.

The NDP joins in solidarity with our sisters in CEP and the women across Canada to call on this government to immediately implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre answered that question very well in terms of the agricultural industry. I am sure that on another day we can have another debate about what we need to do there in terms of looking at alternatives and organic farming and looking at the agricultural sector, but today we are focused on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

I think the motion establishes two very important principles that I would like to ask the member to talk about. One he has already mentioned, and that is reversing the burden of proof. That is very important in terms of public policy. It has been up to individuals and organizations to challenge what is going on and to show that something is unsafe. Now the burden of proof would be on the manufacturers to show that if they want a product to come into use they have to be able to demonstrate that it is safe.

The second important principle is that of reducing exposure. We know there is a huge amount of evidence to say that exposure to all of these chemicals and pesticides is dangerous. It is ironic that we send kids out to play and to the playground to get fresh air and get them outside, yet we are sending them into a risk zone. I would like to ask the member to address that issue of reducing exposure.

[Business of Supply, May 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that the NDP has introduced this motion today. It reminds me of a similar significant initiative that we undertook a couple of years ago, and that was our motion on trans fats that was approved by the House. We did that, as we do this today, on the basis of responding to the significant concerns in Canada about public health, about the impact on people's personal health of the use of pesticides and trans fats.

I am proud of the fact that the NDP has taken a very strong approach here and is in effect calling for a ban of non-essential cosmetic pesticides.

I would think it would be an initiative that the member from the Bloc would welcome. There is nothing in this motion that undermines what the province of Quebec has done. In fact, on the contrary. We should be celebrating that this has happened in Quebec and saying, “Let's see this happen in the rest of Canada”.

From that point of view, it is very disappointing that the member did not respond to the question raised by the member for Halifax. I think what is being said here is that there are no boundaries in the air that we breathe and the chemicals that we ingest. We all want a good quality of life. We all share this planet. Therefore, in this federal jurisdiction, surely, the most significant thing we can do is to bring forward something like this to build on what has taken place in Quebec. I would expect to see these members supporting an initiative that would ensure that what has happened in Quebec would take place in other jurisdictions across the country.

We know that over 100 municipalities have adopted pesticide bylaws. We know that the province of Quebec has done that as well. Let us see this right across Canada. What is wrong with that, for heaven's sake?

[Darfur, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, no one is asking that be done. In fact, the government has not been clear on what its intentions are.

While the Prime Minister figures out who is in charge of this file, we know the UN Secretary General has called on Canada to prepare a joint multilateral peacekeeping force in Darfur. We know the Chief of Defence Staff indicated that peacekeepers could be sent there.

Instead of more delays and confusion, we need to get down to work and the government needs to develop a plan about what Canada's role will be to stop the genocide in Darfur. When will that plan be tabled in the House?

[Darfur, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, from Afghanistan, the foreign affairs minister committed Canada to staying in Kandahar indefinitely. The day before, the defence minister said that Canadian Forces were stretched too thin to send a peacekeeping force to Darfur. Now we have the Prime Minister saying that all options are on the table and that Canada would consider sending troops to Darfur.

The inconsistency of the government is very disturbing and unsettling. Who should we believe, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister?

[Chinese Canadians, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, between 1885 and 1923 the Canadian government collected $23 million through a head tax on Chinese immigrants to Canada. These racist and discriminatory policies of the past tore families apart and caused incredible financial hardship.

In 1984 Margaret Mitchell was the first MP who brought this issue before the House of Commons. In 2004 Parliament debated my motion asking for an apology and redress for head tax payers, their families and representatives. The NDP has championed this cause from day one.

I recently met with families and representatives in Vancouver who told me once again the importance of fighting this injustice by ensuring there is an official apology and redress for the remaining head tax payers, their spouses and descendants.

The government must do the right thing, and commit to an apology and redress for the thousands of Chinese Canadians who have been waiting so long for this injustice to be amended.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to hear the comments from the minister when he said that the NDP had not been clear. If he heard both our members, who put forward the NDP position, he would have heard some very substantive questions and arguments about why we think this agreement is flawed and why we think it is a clear erosion of Canadian sovereignty.

One of our concerns, and it is certainly a concern that is expressed by many Canadians, is the government is taking a 50-year-old agreement that came out of the cold war, and it served its time, and is trying to give it a new life. One of the questions before us is whether Norad is now being used, in effect, by stealth as a cover vehicle for deep integration with the U.S., resulting in the loss of Canadian sovereignty. This is a very legitimate question, based on what is in the agreement before us tonight.

To come back to the Bi-National Planning Group, it states in its report:

The upcoming NORAD Agreement renewal...is an important step towards enhancing the defense and security of our continent. To continue this momentum a “Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement” is the next logical step, as it would bring unity of effort and direction to each of the defense, security and foreign policy organizations, including NORAD.

There is a very real question that the government has not answered, and that is, where does this agreement take us in terms of the amendments that we see? We know one of the amendments, amendment h. is:

Arrangements shall be maintained to ensure effective sharing, between the Parties, of information and intelligence relevant to the Norad missions.

There is a great concern that this amendment, and there are others as well, moves us into this arena of shared intelligence and integration and we will lose decision making that we have in this country.

I challenge the minister to say that the NDP is not being clear. It seems to me we are expressing the very serious concerns we have heard from Canadians. What is not clear is where the government is taking Canada in terms of its integration with the U.S. That has not been put forward tonight by the government. It has a responsibility to do that and to come clean with the Canadian people. We would like to hear the government's position on that.

[Norad, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that Norad has already been signed and he knows that the motion coming before the House is a sham. It is unamendable and it is being done after the fact. It makes a joke of the Conservative election promise. It is heavy handed and anti-democratic.

Will the government allow Parliament to do the work Canadians sent us here to do, or are we simply to be a rubber stamp when the Conservatives have already given away our sovereignty?

[Norad, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the already signed Norad agreement allows the United States to monitor Canadian internal waterways. It also reaffirms the Liberal commitment to allow aerospace surveillance to be transmitted to the Americans for the purposes of missile defence.

Why did the government not insist on sovereignty over our internal waterways and ensure that there will be no participation in Bush's missile defence scheme. Why did it not insist on that?