Libby Davies

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would make it clear that the Conservatives did have a very different position. They have been very clear that they wanted to have an election as soon as possible. They wanted to have a non-confidence motion.

It is to the credit of that party and also the Bloc that their leaders did, in a spirit of compromise, come up with a motion that we are debating today to actually give the Prime Minister a real choice. It gives the Prime Minister an opportunity to have an election that meets the criteria that he himself set out and allows legislation to go through. It allows the aboriginal affairs conference to be held. It allows the business of the House to continue. It allows an election not to be held during the Christmas period.

I would also agree with the member that the culture of entitlement is something that is so pervasive here, and obviously we can see that even today from Liberal members. Does the member believe that, based on the ethics package put forward by the NDP and I know the Conservatives also put forward a package, this culture of entitlement can actually be changed?

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I would like to make a few comments. First of all, it is quite outrageous and flabbergasting to hear this member rise and make this point of order. Clearly what is going on here is a political ploy that is being put forward by this member and presumably other members of his caucus who want to try to ensure that this motion will not be debated today.

I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is entirely in order. It is wording that is characterized in a way that an opposition day motion would be characterized: “That, in the opinion of this House...”. It is giving advice to the Prime Minister based on the opinion of this House that would then be transmitted to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Governor General.

I would point out that for the wording of this motion there were discussions held with the Table to ensure that the wording was appropriate, including the word “transmit”. These discussions have been held.

I think we should make it clear here today that this intervention by the Liberal member is simply political posturing. It is mischievous to try to prevent this getting to the floor. It is a very anti-democratic intervention that has been made. We simply want to have this motion debated by the House, to have the House vote on this motion and to provide this advice.

It would be no different from the procedure used when there is the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and it is transmitted to the Governor General. It would be no different from that case.

I would urge the Chair not to concede to the point that is being made here. This motion is in order. We hope that this debate on this very important motion will now begin.

[Government Appointments, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Gomery report found what we know to be so true. Ottawa is suffering from a Liberal culture of entitlement. No matter where we look, it lurks.

Since the Prime Minister took office, his friends and a disgraced cabinet minister are in the Senate, a staffer is off playing ambassador, totally ignoring the votes in the House to oppose patronage.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister answer this? How do government members reconcile their rhetoric on ethics with the glee and arrogance with which they practice patronage and cronyism in everything that they do, every day in every decision they make?

[Housing, November 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the 2005 Social Watch report, Canadian economist Armine Yalnizan says that:

-- despite unparalleled economic and fiscal capacity, Canada has failed to make serious progress in the fight against poverty and inequality.

It was the NDP that forced the federal Liberals to commit $4.6 billion for social and environmental investment, including $1.6 billion for housing. However, Canadians are still waiting for access to affordable housing.

Even existing low income housing is at risk because the government has withdrawn subsidies for co-op housing and countless low income Canadians are at risk. The minister says that he will fix the problem, but co-ops are fed up waiting.

The appalling housing conditions for so many aboriginal people is a national disgrace, as so hauntingly exposed in Kashechewan.

The National Housing and Homeless Network has given the federal government a failing grade in its 2005 report card, and still the government will not commit to ongoing funding of important programs like SCPI.

We in the NDP believe accessible, affordable and safe housing is a fundamental human right. Time is running out for the government.

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I provided notice to you yesterday under Standing Order 52(2) to request an emergency debate on a situation of grave concern involving a labour strike in western Canada, and specifically the federal government's mandate to meet and report on its international obligations under the ILO treaties, specifically ILO Convention No. 87 signed by Canada in 1972. That convention ensures the freedom of association and the protection of workers of the right to organize.

In B.C. the provincial government unilaterally imposed a contract on teachers in the absence of fair collective bargaining and flies in the face of a recent ruling of an ILO tribunal that found the B.C. government to be in violation of the convention, which is very troubling.

In Brooks, Alberta there is a serious situation of intimidation and continuing violence undermining the basic rights of workers to organize and bargain for a fair agreement. This situation, I believe, requires national attention and action to meet our international obligations under the ILO.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I implore you to consider the urgent situation and the need for Parliament to act and to meet its international obligations. I hope that you will agree to my request for an emergency debate.

[Softwood Lumber, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the trade minister.

The NDP has long called for linking energy with softwood so that Canada can protect our jobs and businesses from George Bush's attack.

Is it now government policy that Canada will link energy with softwood and have we told the Bush administration that Canada is prepared to do that or was the Prime Minister's speech yesterday just another in the endless list of tough sounding puff? Quite simply, what specific response do we have today that we did not have four months ago?

[Citizenship and Immigration, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say George Bush will not be listening because he knows that this Prime Minister is all talk and no action.

I would now like to ask the immigration minister a question. When a relative who lives abroad tries to visit family in Canada, there are unbelievable delays and frustrations, yet when Martha Stewart gets out of jail and decides to race pumpkins in Canada, she gets her visa in record time.

Does this minister have any idea why people are so angry when they have to wait months to see law-abiding grandma while Liberals brag about how fast they will let a convicted felon in? This is not “a good thing”.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister is in New York today giving another speech. In fact, all this Prime Minister does is talk. There is nothing that makes him happier than sounding like he is about to act.

NAFTA ruled four months ago. Why in those four months has Canada done nothing to protect our jobs and businesses from George Bush's attacks? What good is another speech when everyone knows this Prime Minister does not have the gumption to stand up for this country, for jobs and for workers? What good is another speech?

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the parliamentary secretary to be incredibly patronizing. This is not some sort of philosophical debate. The bill exists. This is something concrete. This is about sharp differences between what we saw as a need for amendments to the legislation and that did happen.

The question of needing the bill is not an issue. It is the reality that the bill does not give the kind of protection raised in committee and was warranted. I find it very trivializing for him to pass it off as somehow being a philosophical debate.

If the government chooses not to look at those amendments and adopt them, then so be it. If the government wants our support on Bill C-25, then let it come forward and discuss those amendments. We would be happy to do that. If they were approved, then we would be happy to support the bill.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very different perspective. For the parliamentary secretary to in effect minimize and trivialize the concerns being put forward is most unfortunate, but I guess that is what he sees his job. This is not just about what the NDP has to say. The bill went through committee where there were significant concerns expressed by NGOs, by people who watched this development and put forward the same kind of concerns.

I am under no obligation, nor is the NDP, to say we have some responsibility to approve this because the government has brought forward a bill. Our job is to critique the bill and point out its shortcomings. The NDP did a very good job of doing that. It is very regrettable that the Liberal government chose not to hear what those concerns were and to act upon them. We now have an important bill going forward. It needs to be done, but it is flawed. It does not have the accountability that is required not does it have the transparency that is required. I think there will be many questions about the bill in the future. I think Canadians were sold short by it.