Libby Davies

[Committees of the House, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members are aware that next week is National Mental Health Week, from May 7 to 13. In advance of that, today is the national day of action for the Not Myself Today campaign that draws attention to mental health in Canada and the fact that we all need to be aware of it, we are all affected by it and we all need to take action.

There have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you will find that there is consent for the following motion: That this House pledge its support for the Not Myself Today campaign and urges all Canadians to show their commitment to improved mental health and affirm the pledge of the campaign, “Mental health can no longer be ignored. We are all affected. We are all touched by it”.

[Health, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have not seen anything on this so-called promise the Conservatives have made. In fact, at her own press conference today the minister refused to answer questions about it because apparently it does not fit with her message of the day. No wonder the Conservative government has a well-earned award for secrecy from The Canadian Association of Journalists.

I ask again. Why will the Conservatives not level with Canadians who want straightforward information, or is their PM-approved message of the day as much information as they think Canadians deserve?

[Health, April 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep making cuts they were never honest about before, like the decision to cut the OAS. Now they are backing away from the commitment that they made to the parents of gravely ill children.

The Conservatives brag about having acted to help parents of crime victims, so why are they failing the parents of children who have fallen victim to illness? The Conservatives promised to help. When will they fulfill that promise and why was it not in the budget?

[Status of Women, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, based on that response, we gather that it is perfectly all right to make women pay the price for the government's damaging cuts.

Does the minister understand that these groups may be forced to close their doors permanently at a time when we need to know more about women's health, not less?

The Centres of Excellence improve women's health outcomes, and that is something that we all benefit from.

Why is the minister arguing against the health promotion work of these groups, work that saves health care dollars? Will the minister reverse these cuts?

[Daffodil Day, April 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian Cancer Society's Daffodil Day.

Every three minutes cancer claims another Canadian, and April is the month to fight back. While treatment and therapies have never been better, we must all continue to do our part to prevent, empower and inform Canadians about this disease.

Every one of us knows someone who has been affected by cancer. My partner of 24 years was one such person, and his memory is very much a part of the work I do. I know I am joined by my colleagues and all Canadians in remembering our friend and our great leader, Jack Layton.

For more than 50 years, Canadians have worn the bright daffodil to honour and show support to those living with cancer and to remember those who have died. This Friday, April 27, let us all commit to strive for a healthier world to reduce the risk of cancer.

[Petitions, April 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my B.C. New Democrat colleagues today as we present 57,000 signatures on a petition concerning the protection of the pristine coastal waters of British Columbia forever.

As others have noticed, there has been a moratorium on oil tanker traffic since 1972, but the petitioners feel very strongly--and this is a very strong sentiment in British Columbia--that it is time to strengthen the oil tanker moratorium and turn it from policy into law.

The petitioners call on the government to legislate a ban on oil tankers to protect our coast forever.

We thank the Dogwood Initiative for the tremendous work it has done in gathering so many thousands of petitions that truly reflect the sentiment in British Columbia.

[Petitions, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present many pages of petitions from across the country, but primarily from B.C., concerning the fact that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of Asian regions and that these animals live in deplorable conditions. Canada should join the U.S., Australia and the European Union in banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur. The petitioners point out that Canada is the only developed nation without such a ban and that it should be mandatory that all fur products imported into or sold in Canada be properly labelled and identify the species of origin. They also call on the Government of Canada to support a private member's bill that would bring in this legislation.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we know this bill would deprive some refugees of the right to apply for permanent residence for five years and, therefore, the reunification with their families, including their children. Why on the earth would the government be blocking family reunification, which has always been a very important element? This bill would actually be a roadblock to family reunification. I would ask the member what the justification is for putting a further obstacle to family reunification.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and question from the hon. member. It is correct. Under the former bill, Bill C-11, there was a panel of experts, including human rights experts, that could make decisions about a safe country. This would now be put into the hands of the minister. It is just further evidence of the concerns we have about the bill, which focuses more decision making and power, in a political sense, in the minister's office other than through an independent expert advisory situation.

What we had before was far superior to what is now contemplated in the bill.

Why would we have a minister making those determinations about what would be a safe country when we could have reliable, independent experts doing that and giving reasonable advice? Again, it is further evidence that the bill is fundamentally flawed and we should not approve it.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why every organization that has expertise on this issue has voiced its strong opposition and concern about the bill. The fact is that when we read the bill and see how power would be vested in the minister's office, how it would create a two-tired system, how it would focus on abuse, how it would be punitive across the board, we have every reason to believe it is fundamentally flawed and would be harmful to refugees overall. That is why every major organization in the country that is an expert on this issue has come out publicly and said just that.

I would like the minister to respond to those criticisms rather than to stand, with self-righteousness, and pretend that somehow the bill would move us forward when it would do just the opposite.