Libby Davies

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party for his comments, but I think it is regrettable that he seems to be suggesting that Conservative members will not be supporting the motion because somehow they cannot agree that a referendum should be held within a year or that it should be held separate from an election.

It is regrettable because I think there is a very important principle being debated today in the House. It is the principle that we need to devise and engage with Canadians in a discussion about a system that will truly reflect how people are voting. I think the member would probably agree with that. I listened to his remarks very carefully and it seemed to me that he was expressing a lot of concern about our present first past the post system.

I would ask the member to take a look at the motion before us today and to consider the fact that within the motion, by saying that a referendum be held within a year on the principle of changing the present system to proportional representation, surely within that process it would be an incredibly enriching experience to have a debate out in the community, in the public realm, in the House, before we even get to a referendum.

That debate is actually already taking place across Canada. There are organizations campaigning on an idea of PR. The idea of actually having an open discussion beyond what is taking place here in the debate today is something that I think is very important. It seems to me that this is where the opportunity lies to actually engage with people and to deal with some of the questions the hon. member raised in terms of party representation and how that works. Then there would still be a later process to actually look at the preferred model.

Does the member agree that this kind of public consultation would be a very important part of a process before we got to a referendum? Would the member not support the motion on that basis?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North Vancouver for his comments. The debate we have had so far has been good because we have heard different kinds of options and possibilities.

In response to the member's suggestion about the motion put forward by the NDP today, the whole point of the motion is to allow a process to look at this issue, involve Canadians in the review of the issue of proportional representation and ensure that we have a representation of government that truly reflects how people feel and how they vote. Within our motion that possibility exists.

It may well be that citizens would be involved in the commission. There could be public hearings. There may be the possibility of a preliminary vote of some sort. Those are all things that would need to be discussed.

What we have to do today is to agree on whether there is an important principle here, and that is that the present system does not represent how Canadians feel about their elected representatives in the way they are voting.

What kind of feedback has the member had in his constituency and other places across Canada? I know, by the feedback I have received from people and in the e-mails I received, there is a great deal of interest outside of this chamber from members of the public who simply do not feel they are being represented by the current system. Of course, it is the oldest trick in the book for those in power to say, “This is a good system. It does well by me”. However when we look at it from the point of view of voters and for Canadians who do not feel represented, then the principle is that we need to have that changed. Would he comment on that?

[Supply, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle because he has taken the lead, in this Parliament and in other Parliaments, to bring forward this issue of democracy and parliamentary reform and proportional representation. He has been a real champion of that.

In listening to the arguments that he has laid out, it strikes me that the single greatest impediment to bringing forward democracy in PR is the Liberal government. It has huge vested interests in keeping the system as it is and preventing some sort of measure of proportional representation.

I would like the member to talk about how this should also be debated in Canadian communities. We have seen groups like Fair Vote Canada and other organizations. This is a massive campaign outside of Parliament to bring forward PR. Would he comment on that?

[Pharmaceutical Industry, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the walrus and I guess this minister will not be the carpenter.

Let us move on to the record of the government which helped raise drug prices.

Canadians need cheaper drug prices and Africa needs them too to fight AIDS. Last week some ministers said that they wanted cheap drugs for Africa, but as we know the big drug companies have come down very hard on this issue.

Therefore Canadians really want to know where does the government stand. With Stephen Lewis or with big pharma?

My question for the Prime Minister is this. Will Canada stand up to big pharma and let cheap drugs fight AIDS in Africa? Is the government willing to take on big pharma to help the people of Africa?

[Taxation, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there are new allegations that, while he was finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard's company used operations in Barbados that did not meet the government's requirement to qualify as tax shelters.

As the revenue minister, I am sure that the minister believes that tax evasion must be condemned. As a Liberal, I am sure she wants to clear some of the corporate muck that is sticking to her new leader.

The question is this. Before he becomes Liberal leader, will the minister investigate fully the tax evasion practices of Canada Steamship Lines? Will she do that?

[International Cooperation, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, because Canada has not stepped up to the plate.

I want to switch my question to another topic. The new Liberal leader has raised $1 million more than he can spend. We do not know who gave or what he promised but we are sure the gift will keep on giving for the donors.

If the heritage minister should stop campaigning because she has lost, surely the finance minister should stop fundraising because he has won.

I would like to know, has the Prime Minister--

[International Cooperation, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today we hear yet again about the pandemic of AIDS in Africa. We hear again how literally millions of people are dying tragically because they cannot afford the drugs to keep them alive. Canada is yet again doing nothing to help the flow of affordable drugs.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Stephen Lewis says that Africa needs just one G-7 country to step forward and help the cheap drugs flow. Will Canada be that country? Will the Prime Minister ensure that?

[The Environment, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, a quick thanks to Ernie Eves last night. His admiration for the former finance minister makes great footage for Jack Layton's election ads.

First the new Liberal leader says glowing things about Gordon Campbell in B.C. and now Ernie Eves is kissing up to the former finance minister too. Talk about uniting the right. However Eves and the new Liberal leader have something else in common and that is a dismal record on coal.

I would like to ask the environment minister this. Why has the government not enforced its laws against Ernie Eves' filthy coal plants? Why are they not enforcing the law?

[Canada Elections Act, September 23rd, 2003]

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

Yesterday, we know who did his Mr. Democracy shtick again. It is a very unique brand: take over a party; stifle debate; and excite people so much that a whopping 11% of Liberal members bother to vote.

What is the big democracy plan? It is let Liberal MPs change their system before voters get a chance to change our system. Why should democracy work only for those who are elected and not those who do the electing?

I would like to ask government members, will they support real democracy by voting for the NDP motion for a national vote on proportional representation? That is democracy.

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government does not want to answer these questions about which Canadians want to know.

To add to that, do we know that the Alliance is running scared about the hard right turn the Liberals just took? It strikes me that hunting season has now just begun on the Prime Minister's legacy.

We know that marriage and marijuana will probably be the first to go. What about some other popular legacy items? What about Kyoto? The new Liberal leader voted for marriage, but then he said that he would turn the clock back when he took power.

Again, is anyone over there willing to answer what the government stands for? Will the government tell us whether the coal baron will not do the same for Kyoto and abandon it? Who will answer?