Libby Davies

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Bloc has raised an extremely important point. We do know this major foreign policy review, discussion and document is to come forward. Presumably all of us will have a very keen interest in it. There will be a lot of debate about it because there are some very sharp differences about Canada's foreign policy and where it should be headed. It seems inconceivable that we would be taking this very precipitous action to separate this department on the eve of when we are receiving a major policy paper on foreign policy and that the debate will take place.

We would want to be assured that what is happening with this department being cut apart will not impact on what happens in the debate, but we have no assurance of that.

The minister is taking very pre-emptive and unilateral action. There was no compelling imperative out there anywhere saying that this department needed to be sawed in half right now.

At the very least the government could have waited until the foreign policy review paper came forward and members had a chance to take a look at it and deal with that paper in the context of the bill.

However that is not the agenda of the government. It obviously does not want to have that debate, so we will deal with it at that time. It is very unfortunate that it has taken place in this manner because it means we will not have the broader context in which to look at that foreign policy review.

[Department of International Trade Act, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the House to Bill C-31.

I want to recognize the work of my colleague from Burnaby--New Westminster. He has done a terrific job in putting forward the NDP's very serious concerns about this bill. I want to begin by speaking about what this bill means and what its consequences are, and then move to some of the specific concerns that we have.

The first thing that strikes me since we came back last September is that the work of the government has been almost completely characterized by a housekeeping agenda. We have seen ministries pulled apart. We have seen new ministries created. We had a bill that was to create Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, which had already happened a year ago and finally the bill caught up with it. We have seen another bill that created the new Ministry of Human Resources and Skills Development, and on and on it goes.

For us in the NDP, it raises a very serious question along with the feedback that we get from our constituents because it belies what the agenda of the government is all about. Every day in the House during question period we raise extremely serious questions that are the reality of what Canadians are facing, whether it is job losses or the fact that working people are making less money now than they did a decade ago.

One would expect that in this chamber we would be debating these kinds of issues, that we would have a plan from the government to deal with these real questions facing Canadians, yet what have we seen? We have seen this very ho-hum legislative agenda. We have before us today another bill pulling apart another department. For what reason? Is there any logic to this?

We do know that there has been very little consultation. In fact, there has been no consultation on this. It has not been studied in committee. It is not known where these recommendations might have come from, but here it is. It is put forward as some sort of housekeeping initiative. Pulling apart this department and separating out Foreign Affairs and policy on foreign affairs from trade issues is something that will have enormous consequences, both in a policy sense and in the international arena.

As members of the NDP, when we took a look at this bill, we immediately knew instinctively that this bill was the wrong way to go. Now we are hearing some of the commentary that has come out, for example, from retirees from the foreign service who have written to the committee, to the minister, and who have communicated with us. We can see the kinds of serious concerns that are within the professional service. We should be listening to those people.

These are individuals who have invested their professional lives and careers in the foreign service, in DFAIT. When they say to us that they do not understand why this department is being split apart and they do not understand why this bill is coming forward, then it is incumbent upon us to hear what they have to say and to respond to the genuine concerns that they are putting forward.

The fact is that Canada is a well respected middle power. It is a role that Canadians want to see us play in the international community. We are not one of the superpowers, but people see us as an independent nation with an agenda that speaks in the international community, that hopefully has integrity and principle, and is based on the values of protecting people's human rights, and protecting and promoting fair trade values.

It only makes sense to have a department, and presumably it did make sense because we have had this department for 15 years or more since it was created, that was able to bring together these different, very fundamental policy initiatives within government, so that Canada, in terms of its place in the international community would have a policy basis from which to deal with these very important questions. On the one hand it could speak about and maintain the values of human rights and Canada's place in the world, but also recognize that in the context of trade. To us, this initiative is something that is very illogical.

The Prime Minister recently returned from China. There have been other initiatives to other countries. In fact, we have a Prime Minister who likes to be more away than he is at home. We have a Prime Minister who is trying to make us believe that he has this very noble and honourable international agenda for Canada's role in the world. Again, why would we then take a department that has dealt with these two key issues and break it apart?

We have been raising the question of our outrage about the sell-out of Canadian jobs in the House. It has included the possible foreign takeover of Noranda by China, foreign investment, and the lack of any kind of policy review about foreign investment and takeover. The issue that flared up just last week raised by our member for Timmins—James Bay stunned the House in regard to the little Canadian Maple Leaf on a pin. He said to people, “Why is it that Canadian jobs are being exported and being sent overseas? Why are we supporting a race to the bottom? Why are we supporting an economic agenda and a trade agenda that is based on no value of human rights?”

People were stunned and we saw the government scramble. In fact, the minister that day really did not have an answer for the question that was put in the House. He was very much taken aback. However, several days later the government found a loophole and it found a way for the little Maple Leaf flag pin to be made in Canada. It was a very symbolic thing. It spoke to a central issue that has concerned us in the NDP and has concerned Canadians right across the country and that is the future of our economic prosperity, the future of Canadian workers and Canadian families. That may seem distant from this department, but this is a very related question.

I suggest again to members of the House and to the minister that it is a serious mistake to move ahead with this kind of legislation. I know the next piece of legislation that we will be debating is to create the new foreign affairs department. Therefore, we will have these two separate departments.

I have been on so many committees where no matter what party one is a member of members would express frustration about how government departments operate in silos. Whether it is social policy, economic policy, environmental policy, agriculture or whatever it is, we can hear the frustration of government backbenchers too. There is frustration about how difficult it is to deal with some of these complex issues that we face and the studies we might undertake in a committee because we deal with these different departments that never speak to one another. They do not communicate.

We have these ministers who perhaps at a cabinet level have some communication, but very often within the real world of this federal bureaucracy, especially when there have been so many cutbacks in the public service, these departments become very territorial. I have participated in committees where the whole committee has said, and a word was invented, “horizontality”. What a word, but it was invented to speak to this issue of needing to ensure that departments were working together in a much more comprehensive, constructive, and holistic way to deal with complex policy issues.

That has been a thrust over the seven years that I have been here, whether it has been on issues around employment insurance, social policy or housing. Even in the housing field, a whole secretariat was set up interdepartmentally. I know the minister responsible for housing is very proud of that, that a secretariat was set up to ensure that the different departments that were involved in one way or another on the question of affordable housing were actually working together.

Here we had a department that was actually bringing together these two essential components and now it is going to be broken apart. That is really a very unfortunate thing. It is something that we should expose as a short-sighted move. We should expose it as being very unprofessional. This is evidenced by the letters that we have received from retirees in the foreign service. We should expose it for something that will downgrade Canada's ability to operate in the international community in a very complex world.

It is a move that will lose us credibility as we move forward. We need to have a keen nuance about foreign affairs policies and development, and trade issues.

From the point of view of the NDP and the work that our very able critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has done in speaking to this bill, and I know our foreign affairs critic, the member for Halifax, has been very involved in this area, it is a real mistake to bring forward both of these bills to split DFAIT. I think it is something that we will regret in the long run.

People work in that department and have a lot invested in terms of the different portfolios. We have seen numerous reorganizations in British Columbia. Every department has been turned upside down and inside out. New departments are created and put back together again. They give people different ministers and different subsets and junior ministers.

I always think that when that happens it is a real sign that there is a real structural problem. It is a sign that there is a real problem and a vacuum in leadership. People at the end of the day do not know what to do, so they start moving the blocks around. It strikes me that this is what we have been getting into with this government. There is no agenda. There is no vision about where we are going. There is no vision about protecting Canadian workers. There is no vision about protecting Canadian jobs in Canadian companies. It seems like everything is up for sale.

Bill C-31 is a part of that. It is not the critical part, but it is a part of that larger problem. For those reasons, we in the NDP will be opposing this bill and the break up of DFAIT.

[Social Development, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: Exactly what is the government trying to do? What kind of breakthrough are we are talking about? None of the basic elements are there in terms of the money, not for profit, enshrined in legislation, accessibility, affordability. Just what is the breakthrough that we are talking about?

The minister is creating a system that will allow big buck operators to move in on our kids. Is that what the government calls a breakthrough?

[Social Development, February 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of broken Liberal promises, parents are desperate for child care solutions. Canadian families do not want vague promises. They want a sustainable, legislated not for profit program; a safe place for their kids.

The Minister of Social Development might be famous for the number of pucks that he stopped but on this one he is leaving the net wide open to big buck operators. It is sort of a business opportunity on kids.

Why has he failed to deliver even the basic elements of a national child care program and why is he leaving it wide open for the for profits to move in and take it away?

[Parliament of Canada Act, December 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, usually when I get up to speak in the House, I say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak. Thinking about this particular bill, realistically and honestly, I do not feel like I am pleased to have this opportunity. I am doing it because I am the House leader for the NDP and I am doing it to reflect the position of our caucus. Quite honestly, I am fed up with this issue as are many people. Here we are again in 2004 debating compensation for members of Parliament.

I listened very carefully to what the government House leader had to say. At one point in his remarks he said it was very logical to take this step, that is, Bill C-30. I began to think about that in terms of the logic of what is taking place here today in debating Bill C-30.

I suppose one could argue that it is logical from the government's point of view once the Prime Minister had made his political statements that he was going to undo what Parliament had previously done. From the government's point of view, one could argue that it has some logic. However, in the greater scale of things, it is unfortunate that we are yet again debating what seems to be a perennial issue on the compensation of members of Parliament.

One of my colleagues asked the government House leader why the government wants to have this particular index. The government House leader said the index was based on average wage settlements in the private sector and was a reasonable thing. Why is this index acceptable now, but in 2001 another measure was somehow acceptable? This question was brought up by my colleagues in the Bloc, and is the question we need to ask.

I feel that yet again this issue has become politicized. All members on all sides of the House would agree that we want, what we have been striving for, is a system of deliberation and implementation of pay increases for members of Parliament that is independent, rational, defendable and realistic.

I happen to believe, and I think most members of the House believe, that we get paid very well. I, like other members, work very hard at what I do. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be a member of Parliament. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be one of 308 members of Parliament representing the diversity of our ridings across this country. We get paid well for that. We all work hard. All members share in that sort of commonality and solidarity about what this place is about.

I do not want to be here debating our pay increase yet again for politically motivated reasons. Bill C-28, the former bill dealing with pay increases for members of Parliament, was passed in this place on June 7, 2001. I looked at the record and in actual fact the member for LaSalle--Émard voted in favour of third reading of that bill.

House leaders have spoken of the process they went through at that time to establish a sense of independence and rationality when dealing with compensation. I was not a part of that. Our former House leader, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, now the dean of the House, was very much a part of that.

He has put forward the principles of establishing an independent process, and criteria and benchmarks for determining our compensation. We believed that happened in 2001. Presumably the member for LaSalle--Émard believed it also as did other government members because they voted for that bill. All of that has been undone. Here we are today with another version and another index.

I could argue, like other members have, that this index, which is based on Human Resources Development Canada and the average wage index in the private sector, is a reasonable thing. What really gets people's backs up and why we are reacting as we are to the bill today is because of the history that has brought us to this point. The question is still out there and it makes me feel unsettled. How many more times will we have to go through this?

Now we have a new bill, Bill C-30. Now we have another index. Now we are to believe that it will be an independent thing and never more will members of Parliament have to deal with this issue. What assurance and confidence is there that it will happen now that this has been undone again?

That bothers me and I know it bothers other members in our caucus. I have to agree with members from the Bloc Québécois and our member who spoke previously. There is a double standard.

We take all this time debating MP compensation when what we really need to be doing is focusing our time, resources and priorities on why the average wages of Canadians have fallen so far behind. One reason the index is so low is that people are not getting the pay increases that they need and deserve. Most people are working longer hours and more overtime but they have less take home pay now than they did a decade ago.

I invite members to come to my community in east Vancouver to see what it means for working families who are struggling to make ends meet and where both parents are working, sometimes at several jobs, and paying exorbitant child care costs. They are paying 40% or 50% of their income for housing costs. That is the debate we should be grappling with in the House.

Those are things that stick in one's craw when we are here again debating the salary of members of Parliament. It becomes a big controversial issue in the public about how much money we make and how it is decided, and we all get drawn into it.

For me it was the height of cynical and opportunistic politics in the way the Prime Minister dealt with this issue before we came back in the fall. I think that even members in the Liberal caucus were dismayed and rather shocked at how this was dealt with.

The government House leader was correct when he said that it will be the will of Parliament as to what we do. We are a minority Parliament, and yes, theoretically the opposition parties could get together and agree to vote down the bill, make a decision to do whatever in terms of MP compensation and it would carry. However that is not the point. I think we have to stick to the principle, which is that there has to be an independent process.

I have heard a lot of discussion today on what will happen to the Judges Act when it comes before us. As we know the previous increase that would have come forward was linked to the quadrennial report of a judge's increase. I think the feeling now is that if it is not good enough for the MPs why should it be good enough for the judges. Therefore there have been some remarks here today from the Conservative Party that it will not proceed in that manner.

I have to say that the NDP debated this very carefully in our caucus. As much as we do not want to, as much as we detest the politics that got us to this point today, we are prepared to deal with the bill on its merit in terms of the index that is before us. We will agree that it should go to committee.

However in terms of what takes place with another bill that comes forward on the Judges Act, we will deal with it on its merit. We will look at it at that time. We will decide, in terms of implementing those recommendations that the government has accepted on the quadrennial report, as it applies to an increase for judges. At this moment I think we would be further escalating the cynicism that is taking place and the political nature of what takes place if we said that we will just automatically turn down that increase at this point. We should wait until the bill comes forward and look at it on its own merit and on its own standing. That is what we intend to do in the NDP. That is how we will debate it.

The bill will likely go to committee very shortly and we will support that. We will look at the index that is being proposed and we will probably support it.

I think the way it has been handled smacks of the kind of politics that we have come to expect from the Prime Minister. He does not have the kind of backbone to stick with a decision that has been made. If we are talking about what is fair, then let us get to the essence of it.

Let us talk about what is fair for Canadians, particularly those who are struggling in our society because of government cutbacks, the cutbacks made by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister over the last decade. That should be the real politics of what is going on in this place, not MP compensation.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for speaking about the reality that most Canadians actually experience as opposed to the reality that we have heard from the parliamentary secretary tonight.

I had to chuckle when I heard the parliamentary secretary crow about this sensible, balanced approach that we have for the Liberal government. I was thinking to myself, what is so balanced about the fact that banks are allowed to go almost 15 points above the prime rate? That is very balanced, is it not? It is certainly helping a lot of Canadians, is it not?

This is why we are having this take note debate tonight. It is because there is a serious situation out there and it has to do with the serious imbalance that has taken place.

I represent a community where there are very low income neighbourhoods and where banks have packed up and gone. Poor people in particular are preyed upon by cheque-cashing companies, where, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has pointed out, the interest rates go far beyond the 19%. We are talking about 60% interest rates.

If people are living below the poverty line and do not have access to Internet banking--and I should advise the parliamentary secretary that not everybody has access to Internet banking--and if a bank closes down in a neighbourhood because it is now a neighbourhood that has fewer and fewer resources, people end up at those cheque-cashing companies because they have no other options and nowhere else to go. That is the reality of what we are talking about in the House tonight.

I would like to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster if he believes it is important that we bring in regulation to ensure there is not this massive gap between what a prime rate is and what these credit card or cheque-cashing companies can charge, so that Canadians actually do get a fair shake and an opportunity to take their hard-earned income and actually buy the things they need rather than putting it back into the banks that have already made a huge profit.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to pick up on a couple of things the hon. member said. He talked a lot about identity theft and I think that is a very serious problem.

I think people are a lot more guarded today than they were a few years ago about what they do with information they get in the mail and just throwing it in the garbage. We know how easily it can be picked up and used by someone for criminal activities.

The member also said something that I think is very true. He said that we would be hard-pressed to find a working adult in Canada who does not have a credit card. I would certainly agree. In fact, we can barely get by these days without a credit card if we want to rent a car. There are all kinds of services that we need where we need to have a credit card. This takes us into the other part of the debate that we have been having here tonight, which is the issue of privacy and security.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on what I know has been expressed by members in the NDP and particularly the member for Windsor West who has been raising issues of credit cards as it impacts on our right to privacy.

We know that under Canada's privacy laws and particularly under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act that a bank cannot collect, use or disclose personal information about customers without their consent. I think we all agree with that.

We are now very aware and very concerned about how information, when it is subcontracted to a company that may be doing its business in the U.S., is now subject to the U.S. patriot act. We have had a couple of very high profile examples in the last few weeks and even months. I think a lot of people are very concerned about whether or not Canadian laws are actually protecting our information when information is going through other routes into other processing centres, particularly in the U.S., and would then be subject to the patriot act.

I wonder if the member would comment on that and identify whether or not he also has concerns about that.

[Credit Cards, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciated listening to my hon. colleague across the way. He made some very excellent points about the problems that we have with extremely high credit card interest rates.

One of the things that really concerns me, and I wonder if he shares this concern, is that this is an issue affecting young people in our society. When students go to university, they are loaded up with student loans and student debt. They are often working in part time jobs. They are trying to cover their bills. They might be living away from home. They are often very short of cash even for the immediate needs of food, shelter and clothing.

Some of the credit card companies and banks offer a special student credit card. In fact, these are marketed on campuses to students. Students go for them because they are economically very desperate. Often, the limit on the credit card is initially very low. They may be allowed $500 or $1,000.

I know from speaking with students and my son, when he was a student, they get a credit card and if they are reasonably well managed, before they know it the amount is increased. The $1,000 goes up to $2,500 or $3,000. Then it becomes more of a routine.

I wonder if the member would comment on this. This is a particular aspect of the whole credit card phenomenon that is now really hitting young people in our society. They do not have the financial capacity and resources to deal with the potential of a credit card.

[National Defence, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the reason we keep coming back to it is that the Government of Canada has not made it clear that it will not participate in this project when it is very clear that it will weaponize space. In fact, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Canada would not support arms proliferation.

Why is he not saying no now to this missile defence program? We cannot both oppose arms proliferation and move ahead and participate in this weapons system because it will weaponize space.

Why will the government not recognize that reality and say no, now?

[National Defence, December 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

After two years it is time the Prime Minister faced the facts and said no to star wars.

Can the minister explain why the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is asking for money for space weapons if the program does not involve space? Can the minister explain why a space based laser project in Colorado is funded by the U.S. Missile Defense Agency? It is abundantly clear that missile defence will weaponize space.

Will the Prime Minister say no to George Bush and make it clear, finally, that Canada will not participate in this crazy program?