Libby Davies

[Government Assistance, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a Liberal promise that was made but was not delivered on.

Let us talk about the incoming prime minister, the one who is on a cross-country disaster tour, a prime minister in every way except for being accountable. There has been no photo op in Toronto for SARS. There has been no prairie photo op for mad cow. Two prime ministers, two disasters, but still no help.

I am sure the finance minister would not want us to think that all his new boss is up to are photo ops across the country. We would like to hear him leap to his defence.

Has the incoming prime minister raised with him the need to help with SARS and mad--

[Health, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday we asked if the Liberals would keep their promise and invest $2 billion in medicare. We were basically told no since the promise was conditional on economic growth. We have heard this Liberal trick before, like the 1993 red book promise that tied child care spaces to economic growth. The growth came, but the spaces sure as heck did not.

Why does the finance minister have money to abolish the capital tax for banks, but no money for medicare as promised? Where is that money?

[Foreign Affairs, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one year and 10 days after being illegally detained, interrogated and then deported to Syria by the U.S., Canadian citizen Maher Arar has been released and will be reunited today with his family.

New Democrats are deeply relieved about his release, no one more so than the member from Halifax who worked tirelessly with Maher's wife, Monia Mazigh, and his family for his release. The support of the community and groups like Amnesty International were critical to keeping up the pressure for his release.

Maher Arar and Canadians deserve answers to tough questions that remain. Why did the U.S. detain him and deport him to Syria despite his Canadian passport? Why has Canada not registered more strongly its objections to the U.S.'s illegal treatment of this Canadian citizen? What role, if any, did our Canadian security agency play in his detention and deportation from the U.S.?

The NDP will continue to demand answers to these questions and affirm our commitment to speak out against the abuse of Canadian citizens' rights.

[International Aid, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has clearly given the green light so my question is, what are the Liberals waiting for? Are they waiting for the Alliance to ponder their fate with big pharma?

The fact is that today 15,000 people around the world will be infected with HIV and 8,000 people will die of AIDS. Nowhere does this pandemic threaten more than in Africa.

I repeat the question because it is in the power of the government to bring forward legislation immediately. Will it do it?

[International Aid, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members would like me to repeat the name. The NDP has consistently called on Canada to start the flow of cheap drugs to Africa.

The government has promised treatment drugs before, but it has increased the patents instead. It must do better this time because humanity demands help for Africa now. If it was prepared to take on the drug companies over anthrax, surely our humanity requires us to take them on over AIDS.

I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. When will legislation be introduced?

[International Aid, October 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Jack Layton and the NDP have consistently called on Canada--

[Ottawa Centre Constituency, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that the government would want to get a little more comfortable, a little more forthright, about defending the former finance minister's corporate record before the election.

Mr. Radwanski's waste of public funds is truly appalling, but the cost attached to Mac Harb's Senate appointment is eight times bigger than the amount wasted by Radwanski.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, when will the voters of Ottawa Centre get to decide whether Mac Harb is worth the cost and call a byelection?

[Taxation, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General said she was outraged by George Radwanski's spending, and rightly so. In her words, “he abused funds”. However, the amount of Canadian tax that Canada Steamship Lines avoided paying is at least 12 times bigger than the amount wasted by Mr. Radwanski.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, if the Auditor General's report about Radwanski, as he said a few minutes earlier, shows the system is working, does the government's failure to listen to the Auditor General on tax havens show the system is broken?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle for his question as well as his comment. He has really illuminated how a system of PR would promote the idea of equality.

If we had that system here in Canada, it would open up the process within political parties as well. Right now a very small number of Canadians belong to political parties. We have become very institutionalized in what we do. The NDP has taken very progressive steps to ensure that within our own party we abide by principles of affirmative action for women and for other equity-seeking groups. That has not been the case for other political parties.

To answer the member's question, in a system of PR wherein a party was forced to put the names on a ballot, and people of course still had the right to vote for their own local member, it would really open up that debate and provide a measure of accountability within political parties to be representative of Canadians at large. Who could disagree with that as a progressive step saying that it would actually produce a better democratic system?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member to become part of Fair Vote Canada and participate in those discussions and debates that are taking place.

As the member for Winnipeg North Centre clearly said in response to an earlier question, and maybe the member just does not get it, but a system of proportional representation would allow the system to be opened up. It is a very closed system. It is a system that gives preference to traditional ways of doing politics, of traditional elites in this country.

Allowing proportional representation that is geographical and regional, that is based on communities of interest allows for more people to have that representation come forward. That would be a very significant victory for women who, through a system of PR as we have seen demonstrated in other countries, would have the option to become involved in representation and would be able to take their rightful place in this chamber and speak for their communities.