Libby Davies

[Fair Elections Act, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that this bill is called the fair elections act, because in actual fact, it would impact hundreds of thousands of people in a very negative way. I too would like to speak about the vouching and the fact that it would be eliminated under this bill.

In my community, particularly in the Downtown Eastside, there are many people who do not have ID. They may be homeless. They may be transient. I can tell members that the vouching system has been a very important tool to allow people to use their right to vote. To simply eliminate that because of alleged wrongdoing is like taking a sledgehammer to a fly. It is like eliminating a whole class of people.

I think this is a very class-oriented bill. It does not say anything about enumeration. It does not bring back proper enumeration. If people are property owners, then they are fine and are probably on the voters' list, and everything is okay. However, this is a bill that would hammer low-income people, homeless people, and people who are marginalized in our society. They have as much right to vote as anybody else.

I would like the minister to respond to that.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have presented these petitions many times before, so I am pleased to rise today to present about a hundred pages of petitions collected by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. I would like to thank the organization for the tremendous work it has done across the country, including its volunteers.

Today we have petitions from Vancouver, Prince George, Calgary, Edmonton, Grande Prairie, Peace River, Toronto, and Burnaby, just a whole variety of communities, from people who point out to us that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of Asian regions. The petitioners point out that Canada should join the USA, Australia, and the European Union in banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur. They call upon the government to introduce and support legislation, specifically a private member's bill that is before the House, to ensure proper labelling and a ban.

Again, I would like to thank the organization for the tremendous work it does in bringing this to our attention.

I hope I will be presenting more petitions on this in the future, as I am sure other members will, because it is an issue that we need to be aware of and that people in the community are very concerned about animal welfare and want us to take action.

[Dr. Garson Romalis, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the memory of Dr. Garson Romalis, who passed away on January 30. Dr. Romalis was a courageous champion of women's reproductive rights and an ardent supporter and provider of safe abortions.

He received his medical degree from UBC in 1962, prior to the legalization of abortion in Canada. At that time, he treated many women suffering from septic shock in the aftermath of “back-alley abortions”. After Canada's abortion laws changed, Dr. Romalis built his practice on the belief that women have the right to choose when and if they become pregnant.

Dr. Romalis survived two violent terrorist attacks in Vancouver in 1994 and 2000. Despite these attempts on his life, he remained steadfast in his work and belief in a woman's right to choose. His deep compassion and care have helped countless women and saved lives.

New Democrats offer our deepest sympathy to his family, and we thank them for sharing this great doctor and his life's work with Canadians.

[Health, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Health had no answer about Conservative staffers who now work for the tobacco industry. In addition to staffers like Sparrow and Beardsley, we have Aaron Wudrick, former Conservative campaign manager, and Duncan Rayner, former director of operations, lobbying for Imperial Tobacco. Meanwhile, Perrin Beatty, a former Conservative health minister, lobbied against increased warnings on cigarette packages.

How many times has the Minister of Health met with these people?

[Health, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should not hide behind the provinces. This is about a lack of federal leadership.

The fact is, the Conservatives have also abandoned anti-smoking advertising. Instead, since 2007, the government has focused its tobacco advertising on contraband tobacco. This is very odd, as it happens to be the exact same priority as the lobbyists of big tobacco.

Why has the minister abandoned important anti-smoking advertising? Is it because she is bowing to the demands of well-connected Conservative lobbyists? Is that what she is doing?

[Health, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that does not mean anything to the more than half of Canadians who cannot get a same day or next day appointment with their family doctor. That is way behind the international standard. Even the best performing province is behind the U.S., which is second last on the list.

Because of this poor performance, 50% of Canadians are ending up in emergency rooms for cases that could have been treated by a family doctor. When will the government act on this and work with the provinces to give all Canadians access to family doctors?

[Business of Supply, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the member say that she thinks Canadians have a choice to pay a premium charge. The reality is that most Canadians, especially in smaller and rural communities, or where banks have left their communities, have no choice but to use ATMs. The motion being debated today is about how people are being ripped off.

I would point out to the member that we are talking about federally regulated ATMs. It does not cover the ones she was speaking about, in grocery stores, convenience stores, or gas stations. We are talking about federal regulation. The motion has been very clear on that, and the debate today has been very clear on that.

I would like the member to explain, because it was not clear from her remarks, whether or not she and other members of her party support the motion today, on the basis that we do need to protect consumers.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to Canada Summer Jobs: (a) for each year from 2010-2013, what have been the criteria used to evaluate applications for Canada Summer Jobs funding; (b) for each year from 2010-2013, what was the total amount of Canada Summer Jobs funding awarded to applications in Vancouver East, listed by organizations; and (c) what is the total amount of funding allocated for Vancouver East applications through the Canada Summer Jobs funding for the summer of 2014?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy (FTCS) in fiscal year 2012-2013: (a) what was the budget for the FTCS; (b) how much of that budget was spent within the fiscal year; (c) how much of the FTCS was spent on (i) mass media, (ii) policy and regulatory development, (iii) research, (iv) surveillance, (v) enforcement, (vi) grants and contributions, (vii) programs for Aboriginal Canadians; and (d) were any other activities not listed in (c) funded by the FTCS and, if so, how much was spent on each of these activities?

[Questions on the Order Paper, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the letters that Health Canada mailed to over 40 000 participants in the current medical marihuana access program (MMAP), which disclosed their personal address information on an envelope marked as being from the MMAP: (a) what are the standard protocols governing the communication of changes to medical programs from Health Canada, and what laws or regulations govern these protocols; (b) which branch and department is responsible for mailing out correspondence about the MMAP; (c) how many full-time employees and managers were involved in communicating the MMAP changes in this mail-out; (d) what protocols are followed once a breach of privacy has occurred; (e) what were all of the steps taken when this MMAP privacy breach occurred in November 2013; (f) were the changes that were made to the MMAP subject to a privacy impact assessment; and (g) was that assessment reviewed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner?