Libby Davies

[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?

[Softwood Lumber, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, any way they try to cut it, it is still a sellout. It is still $1 billion that should be coming back to Canadians, the workers who have been hurt by this deal over the years. Even the Conservative Party platform talks about using the repayment of illegally collected tariffs to help displaced forestry workers and their communities but this deal was silent on that question.

Will the minister commit today to using these illegal tariffs to help workers, or are the Conservatives just like the Liberals, which is to say one thing before an election and then do something completely different afterward?

[Softwood Lumber, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, accepting 80¢ on the dollar is a sellout, accepting new export taxes is a sellout and accepting quotas on our softwood lumber is a sellout.

What is to stop other U.S. businesses from attacking other Canadian industries now that the government has rewarded George Bush and the U.S. lumber lobby with a billion dollar payout for ignoring NAFTA? What is protecting other businesses? What does the government have to say about that?

[Canadian Labour Congress, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress celebrates its 50th anniversary this week. As the national and democratic voice of labour, representing over three million workers, the CLC has much to celebrate. It has a proud record.

Over the past 50 years, the CLC has played a pivotal role in establishing rights for Canadian workers which are now an important part of our Canadian work culture. The Canada pension plan, student loans, universal public medicare and laws promoting health and safety were all brought in through the work of the CLC.

In recognition of these incredible accomplishments and in celebration of its anniversary, Canada Post has issued a commemorative stamp.

We in the NDP stand in solidarity and congratulate the CLC and its dedicated members for the immeasurable work they have done and continue to do for the rights and equality for all Canadian workers.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear that the NDP sees this as a major priority.

We are also very aware, though, that this is a major bill. What is it, 270 pages in length? It does require a lot of scrutiny and we will do that very carefully. It is really important that we focus attention on ensuring that the bill gets implemented and that it does not get stalled. There may be some amendments. That is why it will go to committee.

In terms of the whistleblower legislation, the history is there, but it is important, if we are genuine in our intent to actually have whistleblower protection and if the government is genuine in its intent in having accountability and ethics, to work in a very constructive way to get the bill to a place where there will be all party agreement. I do not know if that is possible.

We will certainly have some amendments and that is legitimate, but our intent is to improve the bill to make it the best it can be to restore the--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, while I am not the critic and I am not a member of that committee, I would point out that the NDP has been very consistent in wanting to bring forward whistleblower legislation and have it pass through the House.

I would point out to the member that the original introduction from the President of the Treasury Board under the Liberal government was so poor that it actually did fall to the committee and the opposition parties to go back and redo it, and to come forward with another package. In fact, many people thought the bill that was brought forward was actually worse than the status quo. That was kind of an interesting situation and I do not think we should forget that.

It is a priority for the NDP to put in place whistleblower legislation that protects people's rights. There are some aspects of the current provisions in Bill C-2 that we have concerns about in terms of the compensation that is being put forward, but we have been on this from day one.

It is one of those issues where the former government had so much time to deal with; however, like so many issues, it was a record of broken and failed promises. That legislation could have happened a long time ago if the government were truly in favour of it, but what it brought forward was not very good and it had to be redone by the committee.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, a very important bill.

First, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is our lead critic on this bill and on the question of ethics. He has done a brilliant job of focusing the debate on the issue before us.

We are very aware that this is a massive bill. It is a very weighty document, and it is a lot of material to go through. I think from the point of view of the public interest and public concern, it is very important that we focus on some of the key issues and ensure that this is actually followed through.

Just before the election, when the whole sponsorship scandal was in full flight and was raised every day in the House, I remember being in a coffee shop in East Vancouver getting a cup of tea when somebody came up to me and talked about the sponsorship scandal. The person looked at me and said, “Well, what do you expect. We don't expect any different”. That comment really struck me. It spoke to the deep level of cynicism, unfortunately, that people have about politics, the political process and this place. They shrug their shoulders. They do not expect anything different from the people in Ottawa, or anywhere else for that matter. I find this very disturbing.

The Liberal corruption and sponsorship scandal was an issue that was raised and very hotly debated in the House every day. However, it was also an issue that went so broad and deep that we all ended up suffering from, this growing cynicism about electoral politics and the political process. That is a very difficult thing to get at.

On the one hand, the bill sets out very strenuous rules about ethics, conduct, conflict and public interest. On the other hand, it is very hard to legislate ethics. Ethics comes from an environment. Unfortunately, we have become very used to an environment where, as Mr. Gomery himself said, the culture of entitlement was very prevalent in this place. That is what we are up against.

The bill is significant and it is an important document. The NDP will be examining it in great detail and we will be offering suggestions about how to make the bill a better instrument. However, it is also incumbent upon us, as members of Parliament, to think about our own personal conduct.

I am reminded of the speech that Mr. Broadbent made when he announced to the House that he was leaving Parliament after many decades of public service. He spoke about the dignity of members and the respect that we needed to have for each other and for this place, and the service we provide to our constituents. We cannot legislate that kind of thing. It comes from us in terms of how we conduct ourselves, and that is something for which we all bear responsibility.

Another thing I want to raise in a general sense around the bill is this. It always bothers me, when corruption scandals erupt and so much public attention is on them, as there should be, that the role of the civil service and civil servants gets dragged into them. It becomes something that is dishonourable.

The NDP have enormous respect for people in the civil service. I think people act in a very honourable way, yet they see all this stuff going on around them, the accusations, the wrongdoing, the cover-ups and the secrecy. Hundreds of thousands of people work for the public service, whether in Ottawa or in our local communities. They go out day after day on the front line and try their very best to do the right thing, and they do the right thing. They are the ones who provide the service, but they are also the ones who get a lot of the flak because of this culture of entitlement and cynicism.

It needs to be said by us all that we value the work of our public servants. We recognize the role they played in exposing the secrets that had been hidden within the government. It was a very bold thing to do and it took a lot of courage.

I want to thank and pay tribute to all of those civil servants in the public service who work so hard and provide the service to our constituents and the people of Canada. They are very honourable people and should be held up as a role model of what we should be doing as parliamentarians.

A lot has been said about this bill and a lot more will come. There are some aspects that are quite disturbing that are not covered. My riding is Vancouver East. The riding next door to me is Vancouver Kingsway. The day that the member for Vancouver Kingsway crossed the floor and became a member of the government my phone was ringing off the hook. There were e-mails instantly from people in my own riding, but also from Vancouver generally. These people felt so betrayed by what was done by that member.

I think that member has a difficult time showing his face in the city of Vancouver and attending any event. There is a fundamental feeling that the most basic form of accountability is to your voters. Bill C-2 does not deal with that. We have to ask the question as to why this bill, if it is about ethics and dealing with ethical practices, does not deal with this most fundamental question of honouring the vote of the people who elect us as members in this place?

I know that the member for Vancouver Kingsway has heard a lot from his constituents. I also want to lay it at the door of the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who set up this arrangement just a few days after he spoke about the new government being the most transparent, the most accountable, and that he wanted to bring back the public trust. To me and to many people, it is quite incredible that within a few days of saying those words we would have this action take place, where the voters of Vancouver Kingsway had their trust betrayed by a member who crossed the floor and a Prime Minister who basically participated in that act.

There are other issues that we wish were included in the bill, including the issue of democratic electoral reform. Again, this gets at the question of accountability and ethics as it relates to election practices themselves, the way we conduct our elections and the way we are voted into office. I am very proud of the fact that we in the NDP have championed the issue of democratic electoral reform. We are not going to give up on that issue.

We are very concerned that there is nothing in this bill that deals with electoral reform. It is an issue that we will keep pressing with this government and with all parties because we believe there is a real public appetite to democratize our electoral system. When people vote, their vote should actually count. We want the House of Commons to reflect the way people are actually voting. This is something we will definitely keep pressing.

We are also concerned that Bill C-2 does not go far enough in terms of the limits that need to be placed on practices around lobbying. As the member for Winnipeg Centre outlined in his comments, we still see this going on. We see practices where the relationship with the government and lobbyists and people being appointed and favours being done is still there. It is still happening.

Although the bill does go some distance, we believe that it does not go far enough in limiting the way that lobbyists act. Canadians can expect to see amendments from the NDP when the bill goes to committee.

The same is true of the appointment process. Mr. Broadbent had put together a very good package to deal with appointments. While this bill contains some of those elements, it is still within the purview of the PMO and basically gives a veto to the PMO. We think that is something that needs to be further reviewed to ensure that there is clearly an independent process.

Finally, as many members have remarked, it is questionable as to why the government chose to leave out its access to information reform package that was promised. We all know that when there is an environment of secrecy, there is also an environment of corruption.

The promised package of reform on access to information, opening up information and providing access to people, is a fundamental part of the spirit of this bill. The fact that it is not here is really a contradiction to what the government has put forward. We are very concerned that it is not here and again we will be pressing that in committee to ensure that those questions are raised and that there is indeed a commitment to bring forward the reform for access to information.

We will be giving this close scrutiny in committee. It is a substantial bill. We need to ensure that it is actually followed through and that it does not fall or stall under its own weight, whether it is in the House or in the Senate. We believe that elements of this bill must go through and that we must work in the public interest to bring back public trust and confidence in what we do in this place.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the new member for Trinity--Spadina on her wonderful presentation today. It is wonderful to have her here in the House. We know that she has a very strong reputation and record for her work as the children's and youth advocate for the city of Toronto and her strong representation for social justice, not just in Toronto but across the country. Her remarks today hit very hard in terms of what the real priorities are not only for her constituents, but indeed for millions of people right across the country.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the diversity in this place. She will know that on Monday, the NDP women's caucus held a press conference. We talked about under-representation in this House, particularly for women, and how important it is to seek electoral reform, for example, on proportional representation. That is something that is very dear to the NDP.

I would like to ask the hon. member if she would comment on the importance of that matter and what it means for women to be in this House and to ensure that we achieve representation and gender parity, which is what the NDP is calling for.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I was outside on the steps of Parliament Hill earlier this evening with another member and I was glad I was there to hear the concerns being voiced by peace activists and anti-war activists. This is where they should be voicing their concerns about the government's policy and the nature of the mission in Afghanistan.

It has been alarming to hear Conservative members being critical of members of the NDP and members of other parties for daring to ask questions about their programs and policies. I would like to pursue this further because, as has been explained tonight, many of the questions that we are raising are the same questions that were raised by the Minister of Defence when he was in opposition. I guess they were okay then when they came from that member but they are not all right now if they are coming from the NDP.

It strikes me as very hypocritical that on the one hand a propaganda machine is now underway in the United States, and being referred to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as “boots on the ground”, which has been launched by the Conservative government to convince Americans of what we are doing and to appease George W. Bush, and yet on the other hand the same government is refusing to answer the questions Canadians have about this mission.

I would like to ask the member if he knows what the exit strategy is. Does he know what the objectives of this mission are in terms of what will happen after February 2, 2007 if he is the parliamentary secretary? If he believes in the transparency and accountability of his government, why is he not willing to share that with the Canadian public?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe it could be done by unanimous consent.