Libby Davies

[Iraq, March 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it seems very clear that the government is well down the slippery slope into war. Parliament has been very clear: no involvement in Iraq. Yet we have three Canadian ships escorting Bush's ships of war into combat as far north as Kuwait. Today we learn of a new risk of being rammed by Iraqi boats.

Mr. Bush says that the Geneva convention applies to POWs in Iraq because it is a traditional war. Yet he says on the other hand it does not apply to prisoners of war on terror because it is not traditional.

I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister. If a Canadian sailor is captured by Iraq, escorting a ship in Bush's war does the Geneva--

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is rather shocking that a member would attack an organization which has a democratic process for arriving at whatever position it takes. I am sure it is not totally unanimous. I am sure any one of us could find a member anywhere with a different view. This is an association that obviously has done its work. This is its view and I would expect that the member would respect that even if he does not agree with it.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, of course the member for Burnaby—Douglas is correct. How can one put a price on the issue of public safety and the lives that are lost? This is something with which I think all members of the House would agree.

However, in dealing with the motion today and the votes that will happen tonight, what is also at issue is the credibility of the government in managing this important public program around public safety, whether we characterize it broadly as part of gun control or whether we focus in on the registry itself. I think we have more than enough information from credible independent sources, such as the Auditor General, to point out that the government has really botched the way this program has been run.

It is very important to keep in perspective the bigger objectives of what we are trying to achieve here but also to recognize that we also have a job to do in holding the government to account and to ensure that there is a full analysis, an accounting and transparency about the way in which these funds are being used.

From that point of view, we should be welcoming input from organizations like the police association or the gun control coalition or from people or who are opposed to the registry. When we have that kind of transparency, we then can ensure that the program is managed in a sound and efficient way and that it meets the public objectives of public safety and gun control.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle.

The first thing I want to say is that public safety is of paramount concern to New Democrats. Violence from the use of firearms is of huge concern to us and a program around gun control is something that we very much support. In fact, one thing that needs to be stated very clearly today is that in looking at all the costs associated with what is often characterized as the registry, about two-thirds of the costs actually are associated with licensing of the program rather than the registry.

As federal New Democrats, we are on the record as being strong proponents of gun control, and I speak for all my colleagues on that basis.

However I do want to make it very clear that on the issue of the registry we do have different opinions and views within our caucus. Some of our members are opposed to a registry. They question the effectiveness of a registry and the procedures that it has required people to go through. Some of our members who have concerns or opposition to the registry are also very concerned about the impact the registry has, for example, on aboriginal treaty rights. We have voiced those concerns in the past.

We also have other members of our caucus who are in strong support of the registry and, indeed, gun control, as we all are, including our leader, Jack Layton, who, I want to say, was one of the founding members of the white ribbon campaign in 1991 which provided a voice for men to speak out against violence against women. This program now exists in 30 countries around the world. Our leader, Jack Layton, was a founding member of that organization. He has been very committed, as a city councillor and in his national role, to the issue of gun control and supports the need for a registry.

Having said that, I want to point out that the issue before us today in terms of gun control and the registry has to do with the amounts of money that have been used by this program and how that has been managed. We too, as New Democrats, have voiced these concerns very strenuously both in the House and in committee.

However, in terms of the registry I want to point out that the Coalition for Gun Control, which has about 300 member organizations, including safety, health, police, and suicide prevention experts, has pointed out and has provided information that in the 1980s, on average about 1,400 people were killed with guns every year. That was reduced to about 1,000 people per year by 1999. Those are significant improvements but clearly there is an enormous amount of work that still needs to be done.

I will quote from the Canadian Police Association, which is on Parliament Hill today visiting many members. It points out that “registration increases accountability of firearms owners by linking the firearm to the owner”. It says that this “encourages owners to abide by safe storage laws”. It also makes the point, and it provided a whole brief, that “registration is critical to enforcing the licensing”. It points out that “without registration, there is nothing to prevent a licensed gun owner from selling an unregistered weapon to an unlicensed individual”. It gives a number of other reasons as well.

I would also point out some of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the Coalition for Gun Control. Dr. Richard Schabas, the former medical health officer for Ontario, says in his brief that:

Prevention is rarely glamorous. Gun control is no exception. The deaths and injuries prevented don't grab headlines. It is often all too easy for governments to lose sight of the benefits and to see preventive programs as a tempting target for cost-cutting. As the Government of Ontario learned from the Walkerton tragedy, you never stop paying for your “savings” in prevention.

I think that is a very powerful reminder because part of the tragedy with the Walkerton situation was the privatization of water control systems and operations in the Province of Ontario. As a result of the tragic deaths that took place there that was under public scrutiny as the inquest unfolded.

As federal New Democrats, we want to firmly place on the record today that the government's proposals to privatize the gun registry is something that we will firmly and strongly oppose. We think this is a completely false premise, to privatize the program or to outsource, as the Minister of Justice likes to say. We should be looking for greater accountability and controls within the government operation and management of the program.

I have made it clear that within our caucus there are different views about the registry itself. We respect the diversity of those views. However we have also, as a caucus, very much focused on the management of this program. In fact our finance critic, who has very ably done a job at the public accounts committee, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, has been zeroing in on the incredible problems with the management of the program. The fact that 70% of the financing of the program has had to come through supplementary estimates rather than through main estimates is in itself an indictment of the way the program has had to be managed by the government, because it has been completely unable to account for the cost. As we know, the Auditor General has also zeroed in on the program and has said that the government has kept Parliament in the dark, that there has been a lack of transparency.

I want to be very clear that while some of us strongly support the registry and we all support the need for effective gun control in the country, we will take issue with the government in the management of the program. We will use every vehicle we have, whether it is the public accounts committee, questions in the House or any other forum to hold the government to account.

I agree with my colleague, the member for Burnaby--Douglas, when he points out that the mismanagement of the program and the scandal that has resulted has really placed the program in a great deal of jeopardy. That is why we now have these motions coming forward. Clearly there are very important issues around the fiscal management but we also know the Alliance has a different agenda. Its members want to undermine the program and they want to see it abolished.

This debate is important. However I would urge members in the House, whether they are on the government side or on the opposition side, that in terms of the program and the registry itself, we need to focus on the issue of financial accountability and ensure there is an effective program in place.

On the question from the Alliance member earlier, as far as the position of the Canadian Police Association is concerned, it has clearly stated that it favours the registry and it outlines the links in its work and how it is an effective tool. I do not think it is reluctant to speak its mind. It has its own independent opinions and presumably if it had some other strategy, it would articulate that. However clearly it has said that it is in favour of the registry.

I would just like to reiterate from the point of view of federal New Democrats, we are strongly in favour of measures of gun control. Public safety is very important. The violence that results from the misuse and abuse of firearms is of huge concern to people, whether they are in the urban environment or in smaller communities. How these weapons are used and how they are a major contributing factor to violence in our society is something about which we are very concerned.

We have different opinions about the registry. We are very respectful of that and we work within that in our caucus. However we are with one voice when it comes to the management of this program and we oppose the privatization of the registry. We will be clear in holding the government to account in ensuring there is proper management and ensuring there is effective gun control in the country.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member from the Canadian Alliance who just spoke. He said a few minutes ago that this program costs $1 billion a year. I would like to ask that he correct this information because I believe that the $1 billion to which he is referring is actually over a projected 10 year period. I think it is important that we talk specifically and accurately about the amount of money involved.

I would agree that there have been a lot of issues around the management of this program, but it is also fair to say that something like two-thirds of the costs that have been spent or are anticipated actually have to do with the licensing under this program. The Alliance always likes to focus on the issue of the registry, but in actual fact about two-thirds of these funds are associated with the licensing.

Is it the position of the Canadian Alliance that it is also wanting to scrap the licensing that applies to people who own firearms? Is the Canadian Alliance in favour of scrapping the licensing program when it refers to this $1 billion?

[Canada Pension Plan, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it seems unbelievable that yet again Canadian seniors are being ripped off by HRDC. First it was the GIS and now it is 20,000 seniors who are being shortchanged on their CPP.

How can the minister justify denying these seniors full retroactivity? Why is her department not preventing this problem from happening in the first place?

[Statutory Instruments Act, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-205, submitted by the hon. member for Surrey Central. I am glad that this will be a votable motion because I think it is an important subject that we are debating here today. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for what I am sure took an enormous amount of time, to actually research the issue and bring it forth in the form of a bill that could in a very precise and technical way redress what really has been a longstanding grievance within Parliament: how we can place under public scrutiny regulations that are enacted.

First I would like to speak in a general way, because in reading some of the background to the bill the first thing that struck me is that it is very technical. Probably most folks out there would wonder what on earth is going on and what are we trying to do here in Parliament.

Probably the most important thing to say is that a lot of our constituents who watch the debates in the House see us debating bills and engaging in sometimes very contentious debate that is reported in the media. Hopefully people have some sense of what is taking place in the House in terms of bills that are being debated. Then, when the bills are sent to committee, there are often witnesses called and again there is often a representation of the issues within the media, so there is some sense of transparency and disclosure about the debate that takes place.

What is important to note is that what we do in the House in terms of our legislative authority in making those bills covers only about 20% of what actually finally becomes enacted in terms of both bills and legislation coming from bills. More importantly, the other 80% ends up being encased in regulations that really receive very little public scrutiny. It is at this point that Bill C-205 would become a very key instrument in terms of bringing them under public disclosure through procedures to ensure that the limited procedures we have available to us now as members of Parliament through various committees are actually strengthened and enhanced, to ensure that there is a procedure to deal with scrutiny of regulations which may be at deviance from the legislation, contradictory, unclear or illegal.

Having said that, I hope it is an adequate explanation in a general sense of what the bill is all about.

I come from a municipal background, having been a member of Vancouver city council for 11 years, and I know that there are quite a few members of the House who have a municipal background in city council, school boards and so on. One thing that has always struck me is that in the municipal arena the way we do our business is very much up front. If one goes to a city council meeting, a public hearing or a committee meeting, the business of the council or the municipality is very much on the table. It is very visible in terms of bylaws or policy decisions that are being made.

When I came to this place in 1997, elected as the member of Parliament for Vancouver East, I was immediately struck by the complexity of the rules that govern this place and how hard it is to really get at the essence of a matter in terms of understanding what it is that is taking place and to present that information in a way that is accessible to people, that is understandable and that takes place in a way that provides accountability for government decisions.

I know that the former NDP House leader, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who is now our parliamentary leader, was very involved in the McGrath commission way back in 1986. One of the interesting features of that commission is that it also addressed this issue of lack of oversight when it came to dealing with regulations.

Through the McGrath decision, with which the member for Winnipeg--Transcona was very involved, a provision was recommended and adopted to ensure that a Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations would have some ability to look at regulations and where they were at variance, to issue a report that they should be disallowed. However the interesting thing is that procedure which was enacted 16 or 17 years ago was done on a temporary basis. It has never been made permanent through a statutory order. Although it has been a step in the right direction, it has been defective in other ways and it does not include quasi-government agencies, crown corporations.

For example, when we look at organizations like the CRTC, the National Energy Board, the Canadian Transportation Agency or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, these are important government agencies that conduct all kinds of business in the interests of public policy and of Canadians. Yet what they may or may not do in terms of regulation has no public scrutiny for procedures that exist within our Parliament. That is a very serious shortcoming and it is something that has not addressed or followed up through the McGrath commission.

The bill before us today, Bill C-205, seeks to address some of these serious shortcomings. Although I will not go into all of the technicalities of the bill, one of the key issues on which it focuses is this. Under the limited provisions we have now, where the joint committee through its deliberation establishes that a regulation should be disallowed because it is contrary to legislation or for whatever technical reason it should be disallowed, when that order or resolution is brought forward to the House, there is nothing to enforce it. This is a very serious shortcoming in that the committee must then rely on the goodwill of the minister involved to do something about it.

We have a committee that may have spent hours and hours going through hundreds and thousands of regulations. Then it may have come to a determination, on an all party basis, which makes it a very non-partisan work, and concluded that a particular regulation needs to be allowed only to find out that it is at the mercy or the goodwill of a minister to then follow up. One of the most important aspects of the bill before us today is that it would change that procedure and ensure that Parliament would have the wherewithal and the powers to ensure that where the committee had put forward for a disallowance it would be enforced through a parliamentary procedure. That would be a vast improvement over what we have now.

While obviously the bill has to go through more debate, I hope very much that it will continue to receive very strong support from all sides of the House. It is part of a larger question about the modernization and the democratization of Parliament.

I am one member of a committee that is dealing with the modernization of Parliament and we have been looking at other parliamentary entities such as Australia and the U.K. We are trying to learn what other places do so we can use that to improve the transparency, the efficiency and the accountability that exists within this place.

Again, I congratulate the member for the work he has done. I would suggest that this bill is one very specific thing that we could agree to do to improve democracy in this House and to ensure that Parliament is in control of its own business. I would urge members to continue to support this bill.

[Iraq, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should take a refresher course at law school.

Yesterday he said, “They are taking steps in self-defence which are authorized under UN resolutions which they have cited”. Clearly the UN has not authorized Bush's war. It is in fact pre-emptive and not self-defence.

Mr. Bush can cite whatever he wants. The very simple question is, does the minister think that his citations are correct, yes or no? Is the war legal or illegal in the minister's view? Why will he not answer that question?

[Iraq, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is very good on so-called sovereign decisions, but not so hot on international law, judging by what he said yesterday and reiterated again today in the House. Yesterday in speaking about Bush's war, he said, “We have made our decision. They have made their sovereign decision. We respect that”.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, that too was a sovereign decision. Surely the point of international law is to stop sovereign decisions that are illegal.

I ask the minister again, does Bush's war violate international law, yes or no?

[Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the Elimination of Racism, we remember the memory of those ant-apartheid protestors who were so brutally slaughtered in 1960 in Johannesburg, South Africa.

This March 21st is especially important as the grievous and devastating consequences of war on Iraq begin to unfold. State instituted racial profiling at the Canada-U.S. border crossings, harassment, interrogation, new visa requirements by the U.S. based on country of origin and targeting of members of the Canada Arab and Muslim communities and other minority groups are intolerable violations of human rights.

Federal New Democrats will continue to speak out against this racism fuelled by a war and anti-terrorism agenda that has even seen innocent people incarcerated.

We call on the Canadian government to uphold human rights, both internationally and here at home.