Libby Davies

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan really flags and raises the concerns that all of us in B.C. have about not only the Enbridge pipeline and the devastation that it could cause, as she said with over 200 tankers travelling through very fragile waters, but also the moratorium that we have had on oil and gas development as well as tanker traffic.

I would like to ask the member a question about the Enbridge pipeline. There has been incredible and significant opposition in British Columbia from first nations, environmental groups, local community organizations, provincial and national organizations. I have not yet seen anyone who thinks this is a good development that should go ahead, other than the proponents of the pipeline itself.

Could the member bring forward to the House the breadth and the scope of the opposition in B.C. to this pipeline and how damaging it will be?

[Instruction to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I would like to thank the member for bringing forward the motion. It is a very genuine attempt to be thoughtful about what goes on in this place particularly around question period, and to offer some constructive proposals for us to look at and debate, and hopefully send to the procedure and House affairs committee.

The NDP will be supporting the motion. We believe it should go to committee and there should be a very thorough and detailed debate. Having said that, I do have some concerns that I will put forward.

I want to note that the NDP has long been a champion of parliamentary reform in this House. In terms of recent history, we can go back to the 1985 McGrath report, which was about 100 pages in length and dealt with parliamentary reform. Bill Blaikie, who was a New Democratic Party MP and later became the dean of the House, was very involved in the McGrath report. That report came forward with a number of parliamentary reforms which actually were adopted.

I have to say that since that time, very little change has taken place in the House. We have had a few changes around Standing Orders. Ironically, when the Conservatives were in opposition, we had the changes around concurrence motions, for example, which gave a little more diversity in terms of scope for debate, but beyond that, we really have not dealt with many of the things that need to be looked at.

Certainly our party has brought forward motions in the House, for example, on prorogation and the need to have limits to ensure there are not the abuses with prorogation that we have seen recently with the current government and the Prime Minister. To us this is all part of the debate about desperately needed parliamentary reform.

Even going back to 1992, our member, Dawn Black, was a member of a special advisory committee to the Speaker on decorum. I looked at that report. It was a very good report, but nothing really came out of it.

In 2006, after there had been a few incidents in the House that were just outrageous in terms of sexism, chauvinism and people being completely out of line, there was a review by the procedure and House affairs committee. Dawn Black went to that committee because she had been on the earlier committee. Again there was a big debate about decorum, but the actual report that came out of the procedure and House affairs committee, the 37th report, indicated what some members thought especially in terms of decorum, but no action was taken.

We do not have a very good record of dealing with these issues and looking at some of the substantive changes that need to be made. Nevertheless, this motion gives us the opportunity to say to the committee that we need to have a serious debate about decorum, about question period, and to look at what changes might be made.

I would like to go through a couple of the specific suggestions that are being put forward by the member.

The idea that there should be longer questions and answers is a good one in principle. One of the problems is that oral question period is confined to 45 minutes. Because there are four parties in the House, and it is all apportioned by party, the time to pose a question shrank to 35 seconds. There are a number of variables. There is the issue of making sure that people have adequate time to ask proper questions and hopefully to get adequate replies. However, unless we extended the time for oral question period, we would be very concerned that as the fourth party, or any other fourth party or even a third party, we would lose questions if there were a longer time to pose a question. We have to think about these different variables.

Long gone are the days when Tommy Douglas would stand and ask a question that was very rational and thoughtful, and maybe a couple of minutes long. There were no TV cameras then. We have to recognize that television and the media's focus on question period has really changed what takes place in this House.

I find it interesting that the member quoted some media commentators who said that they too would like to see more decorum. It is a bit ironic, because it is like the chicken and the egg. We ask these questions which are 35 seconds long. It is getting that media clip. The media are chasing it down and the more outrageous it is, the more coverage there will be. It goes around and around.

If we are to change that, if we are to bring back decorum, if we are to look at question period being a more serious part of the work that we do, it also means the media as well will have to change its view of the debate and its view on what takes place in this chamber. Maybe we should invite the media to the committee as well and have a discussion with it about decorum, question period and how it works. I agree that people who come to this place and sit in the visitors' gallery are pretty horrified at the behaviour.

That is one issue. It is the length of time of question period and how that in and of itself jams the amount of time we have for each question.

Then there is the idea that there might be an exclusive day for the Prime Minister. In fact, a number of the suggestions come from the U.K. model, and I have seen some of that. There are some interesting ideas to allow members to have a space where they can ask questions that are more local, or to know that a particular minister will be in the House. However, we also have to know that the main accountability of the government from the opposition has to happen every day in terms of the questions for the Prime Minister. Only having one day to do that, which is the British model, would be a very significant difference. We would have some concerns about whether we would deal with the level of accountability that we need to see.

There are probably other issues at which we could look. Most of all, from our point of view as New Democrats, in supporting this motion, there has to be a genuine discussion among the parties about how to deal with this. It has to be a non-partisan discussion and it has to look at parliamentary reform overall. I agree the public is very focused on question period because the media is focused on that, but there are other democratic reforms as well.

We had our motion in the House on prorogation, which was approved by a majority of members. We have also brought forward initiatives on proportional representation, which to us is the most fundamental element of democratic reform. It deals with the very manner in which we are elected. The way we are elected now is not representative of the votes that we get across the country. Therefore, the very makeup of this chamber is not reflective of the real standings in terms of the percentage of votes that we get through our parties.

Therefore, we are willing to look at question period. However, we also want to make a strong pitch here that this is more than about question period. This is about democratic reform and that has to include ideas around electoral reform, proportional representation and the issue of prorogation. In fact, we will be bringing forward a bill on that. These things that are immediately before us.

The member obviously has put some thought into his motion. We should encourage the committee to look at these proposals and maybe look at what goes on in other jurisdictions and look at some reforms that could take place. On the question of decorum, if we mean it, we have to be prepared to say that changes have to take place. On idea that the Speaker has enough tools, maybe he or she does. However, all parties have to agree and we have to ensure that the decorum in this place is elevated because people are truly shocked by what they see. As the people's representatives in this place, we should not be seeing that.

We want to congratulate the member for the motion. We have specific issues that we want to look at, but in principle the motion should go to committee and it should be thoroughly discussed and debated and maybe we can arrive at some very positive changes.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for rising on a point of order and bringing forward this agreement into the House so that all members can be aware. It is very important that we report this back to the House.

On behalf of the NDP, I would like to say that we believe this is a very important step forward that has been taken. It was five years ago that the NDP first started raising the issue of what was happening to Afghan detainees in terms of what happened with the previous Liberal government and now the current Conservative government.

The important issue here has always been, and remains, to tell Canadians the truth about the handling of Afghan detainees. We believe that this agreement is a critical step in holding the government to account, following the historic ruling that you made, Mr. Speaker.

I would note that part of the agreement in our discussions is for the committee that has been outlined today by the Minister of Justice to periodically report to the House. That is a very important element of keeping this within Parliament and making sure that all members of the House are advised.

We in the NDP will work very diligently on this issue to ensure that relevant information is released while respecting security concerns. We see today as an important victory for parliamentary democracy and for upholding the public interest.

I would like to thank the members of our negotiating team, the member for St. John's East, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh and the member for Acadie--Bathurst for their very hard work in helping negotiate this agreement.

I would like to reference one small error, as details are important. With respect to the fifth bullet on page one, we did agree that committee members will have access to all documents. I think that is something that we put in. We got down to the wire, so in the written form that needs to be reflected.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We look forward to working in good faith with other members of the House who are on the committee in making sure that this job is done and that the public has the information that is required.

[William Corbett, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of our leader of the New Democratic Party and our caucus to honour the life of Mr. William “Bill” Corbett. We share in the sadness expressed in the House today for the loss of a dedicated public servant who contributed enormously to this country, to this Parliament, and to our democracy.

We remember Mr. Corbett as a kind and respected gentleman who served the House for so many years in the challenging and prestigious role of the Clerk of the House; an exclusive club of 13, as was pointed out in a very nice article in The Hill Times. He also served as a deputy clerk before that and held perhaps the unenviable position of chief of the entire House committees directorate before that.

It is not always outwardly evident to the public how our work as elected officials is so intertwined and dependent on the services, knowledge and professionalism of those serving as clerks and their staff. The people at the Table, as we say, are the foundation of this institution, the institution that Bill Corbett held in such high regard and upheld in all his work.

When we speak about the institution of Parliament, we are speaking about these people sitting here before us and beside us in committees, the unsung heroes who we value so dearly, and who contribute daily to Parliament and Canadian democracy. This place would not run without this team of people. We could not have functioned without Bill Corbett in the many years he spent here serving us.

In the last few days, so many friends and colleagues have come forward with wonderful stories celebrating the life of Bill Corbett, speaking fondly of his wry sense of humour and his sense of decency. It is also wonderful to know that he took his around-the-world trip in the last year of his life.

The NDP is grateful to Mr. Corbett and his life's work in Parliament. He was a mentor to many and left his mark on the parliamentary process in many areas, not the least of which was his work to overhaul private members' business.

We thank his family, his wife Marit, his children Erica, Mark and Caitlin, and his siblings for supporting Bill in his work and allowing him to give so much of himself to us here.

We will always remember Bill Corbett as an honorary member of this House and all that he contributed.

[National Security, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, why would the RCMP have been conducting surveillance on an elected official who served as a premier and later as a federal leader? That is what Tommy Douglas was subjected to during his long and outstanding political career.

The Saskatchewan legislature voted unanimously this week for Mr. Douglas' surveillance files, which are now held by CSIS, to be released. Will the government respect this request from the Saskatchewan legislature and release these files?

[Government Appointments, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the credibility of Canada's reputation continues as we see international foundations, NGOs and even the WHO shunning Canada's highly regarded International Development Research Centre.

The IDRC has undertaken exceptional anti-smoking work in developing countries. However, the Prime Minister's appointment of former Conservative minister Barbara McDougall, while she was also a member of Imperial Tobacco's board of directors, has tarnished IDRC's reputation.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit his mistake, stop the erosion of our reputation and ask Ms. McDougall to step down, as she should?

[International Co-operation, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have turned Canadians against each other on an initiative that could have united the country. There is no question that access to safe abortion saves lives. The Lancet, one of the world's most respected medical journals, said in an editorial:

Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.

Why will the current government not accept the evidence and include safe abortions in its maternal health initiative?

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, May 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-201. I want to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for doing such a brilliant job in staying on this bill and bringing it forward.

We just heard from my colleague that he has been working on this for about five years. I think it is a testament to a member in the House that, when they get a bill and they know the issue is really important, they do not let it go. Certainly the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore is one of those members. He has understood this as an important issue not only in his own community but right across the country.

To support the bill, which amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to eliminate the deduction of the Canada pension plan benefits from the annuity payable under each of these acts, is one of those small things but it is a matter that has a big impact on people's lives and on their financial stability, particularly when they are retired.

Therefore I would like to thank the member for bringing this forward so that we are now having the opportunity to debate the bill at report stage and hopefully see it proceed to third reading.

I have to say that I always find it quite amusing when I hear from Conservative members. Somehow they have this sense of entitlement and ownership, that they are the only ones who speak for veterans or the military in the House and that is their territory.

The reality is that this is an issue that goes across all party lines. It is non-partisan. It is an issue that, as I have said, our member from Sackville—Eastern Shore and other members in the New Democrat caucus and members from other parties are very concerned about. It concerns what happens to our veterans when they return from Afghanistan, what happens to them when they become pensioners and what their quality of life is about.

It is easy to put the rhetoric out there about the military and supporting our troops. However, the bill is about what actually happens to people, whether it is the military families who are still here in Canada and the quality of life they have in terms of benefits on the military bases, access to education and health care, support and counselling or whether it is the members of the military and for sure what happens to the members when they are retired.

When we look at the overall picture, it is very regrettable that many veterans are actually living in poverty. The same may be true even of members of the RCMP when they retire; I am not so familiar with that. But certainly I can say in my community in east Vancouver we have an unbelievable problem of veterans who are living below the poverty line. They are homeless. They are people who are destitute on the streets.

In fact I was very happy that a couple of months ago theMinister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State for Agriculture came to east Vancouver, came to the downtown east side, and specifically announced an initiative to set up a storefront operation to actually do outreach to veterans who are in great distress, to make sure they are getting all of the benefits they are entitled to. It is a program that is being partnered with other organizations.

It is just the tip of the iceberg. When a minister has to go into a local community to announce something like that, it gives us a sense of understanding of the problem of what we are facing, that there are so many veterans in this country who are going without and who are facing difficulty.

Again I go back to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and the fact that he raised in the House even last week, Friday it was, the unbelievable situation where we have a veteran's food bank in Calgary, visited by the Prime Minister. Maybe it is seen as a photo op or something. However, to us it is a very horrific situation and it is a very graphic example of what is happening to veterans in this country, that veterans are relying on food banks, that they are relying on outreach initiatives, that veterans are homeless, that they do not have even the bare essentials of a quality of life.

How could this be, in a country and with a government that claims to put this at the top of its agenda?

I am very glad that the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has raised this in the House of Commons, as has our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. They have said to the Prime Minister what a political outrage it is that a photo op took place of a visit to a food bank set up for veterans. We are not addressing the systemic issues within the department that are facing veterans across the country.

We recognize that Bill C-201 is just one element of the bigger picture, and it has to do with the pension element. I am very proud as a New Democrat to say that our caucus has raised this issue many times in the House of Commons. Motions have passed in the House for a seniors' charter. We believe strongly that all seniors in this country should live with dignity, with respect, as all people should, but particularly seniors, who have contributed so much to our country, whether through military service, emergency services or many other occupations and fields.

That in this day and age we are facing this critical issue with seniors, particularly women, who are living in impoverished conditions, just shows how much has changed in this country and how big the gap has become between wealth and poverty.

This is not an issue of a lack of wealth and resources. We live in an extremely wealthy country. There is extraordinary wealth in our economy, in our natural resources and in our ability to make decisions that provide a basis of equality.

It is really very concerning that in this day and age we are still dealing with these kinds of issues. If anything, we have lost ground as a result of decades of deregulation, of privatization, of erosion of our social safety net and erosion of social services that help people and ensure there is a measure of equality.

Although we have made advances under the law and there have been significant court cases about equality issues, the fact is that this goes beyond what is written in the law. It goes to the heart of government policy. It goes to the heart of public policy and what we do here to represent the public interest and the interests of our constituents.

I for one am very glad that those three ex-service personnel, who visited the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore about five years ago, raised this issue and brought it to his attention. That resulted in this private member's bill being put forward.

Here we are today debating this bill with the ability to make sure this clawback is changed. We can ensure members of the military and the RCMP, who are on pension, do not have their superannuation affected but receive the full benefits they should be entitled to.

I know there is opposition to this bill. We are here today in this debate to say to members that this is an important bill. It is a bill we can adopt. This bill would improve the lives of individual seniors in this country. It would affect about 84,000 veterans and about 12,000 retirees from the RCMP. These are not small numbers. This bill would affect 100,000 people. Each of us, in determining how we are going to vote on this bill, can make a positive decision to ensure these members in our communities actually get their full benefits.

Let us make sure we not only pass this bill but we go beyond it, that we put into reality the seniors' charter, that we make sure seniors are not living below the poverty line, that we increase the guaranteed income supplement, that we improve our Canada pension plan. These things are all related.

Our caucus sees this issue as a priority and we are prepared to address it. We wholeheartedly support the bill that is before us.

[International Co-operation, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly initiatives aimed at the spread of HIV and AIDS would also protect mothers by increasing their access to ongoing treatment. Surely, the prospect of ending mother-to-child transmission is a goal that we can all get behind. We need to get behind the full plan, not just one element of it.

Why has the government been ducking this issue? We want to know if the government will listen to the experts and get behind the full goal and the full program of eliminating mother-to-child transmission of HIV by 2015. It should get behind not just some little part of it, but the full deal.

[International Co-operation, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is the government is taking a stand that puts us at odds with our international partners and aid organizations, yet it is silent on issues where Canada's voice is desperately needed.

Why has the government said nothing on mother-to-child transmission of HIV? Four hundred thousand babies are born annually with HIV. The international goal is to eliminate mother-to-child transmission by 2015.

Will the government commit today to support initiatives to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV?