Libby Davies

[Points of Order, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance to rise earlier on this point of order because the vote took place so quickly, but it arises out of question period.

Mr. Speaker, you made a number of comments during question period about the language that was used by the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's and the fact that the language was unparliamentary. In fact, the member for Halifax agreed with you when you questioned her on that.

It raises the issue of the capacity of a member in the House to quote something that has been said by another member when it is in the public domain, which is what happened today in the question from the member for Halifax. It limits us in terms of what we can say when a member is using something that is already in the public domain.

I wonder if you would think about that, Mr. Speaker, because it provides a limitation. Obviously, the member herself was not using that language, she was quoting something that was already in the public domain.

[Committees of the House, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, under the Rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings today, the hon. Member for Sault Ste Marie may move a motion to concur in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Friday, November 17, 2009, provided that no Member may speak in debate for more than 5 minutes and that, following a speech from a Member of each recognized party, the report shall be deemed concurred in.

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-36.

I spoke in the House at second reading and during that debate I expressed my very serious concerns about the principles of this bill and what it would do to our justice system. When the bill went back to committee, I know the NDP justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, put forward some amendments to the bill that would improve the support and involvement of victims and family members. Unfortunately, those amendments were not allowed. Now the bill is back before the House at third reading. I must say the concerns that I and others have expressed here today not only remain but may be stronger than ever.

After listening to the debate today in the House, what really troubles me is that the response from the Conservative government on any problem or serious issue it sees in our society is that there always has to be a tougher sentence. Everything is answered in its mind and world as a tougher sentence.

What we are dealing with here is the justice system as a whole. I heard one of the Conservative members say that it seems to be all about the offender. No, it is not about the offender. It is about our justice system, whether we have balance in it and whether we are doing things that actually help rehabilitate people.

When people have committed crimes, are convicted and sent to prison, they are serving time for that crime, but it is also about rehabilitation. I really have not heard that word today on the Conservative side.

We are hearing in the debate today that there are many members who are very concerned about this bill because it is fundamentally going to change the kinds of balances we have in our justice system, and for that reason we are—

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the member for Outremont for his very coherent and strong words about this bill. I would agree with him entirely that when we read the title, the serious time for serious crime act, immediately it tells us what the bill is all about.

What I find most ironic is that when we look into the history of the faint hope clause and when it was brought in, which was in 1976, one of the reasons it was added to the Criminal Code, and it was done at a time in connection with the abolition of the death penality, was in the hopes that it would provide an incentive for long-term offenders to rehabilitate themselves.

I have not heard the Conservatives use that word. They are all in favour of victims' rights and that is very important, but this is about our justice system overall. This issue of rehabilitation and the fact that we are providing protection for prison guards was one of the reasons this clause was put into the Criminal Code in 1976.

Would the member comment on that?

[Business of Supply, November 20th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his great leadership in bringing forward Bill C-311 and for his great contribution to this debate. I know we are supporting this motion brought forward by the Bloc today. I know he makes the point very well that this idea of dividing the economy from the environment is a fatal mistake.

The member spoke about the economic benefits, such as the building of transit cars in Thunder Bay. I just wonder if he could expand more on the importance of the economic opportunity that is contained in meeting climate change targets and how that could actually be beneficial to all of us in our local communities and the planet as a whole.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 19th, 2009]

With regard to the harmonized federal/provincial sales tax in British Columbia, and the Memorandum of Agreement Concerning a Canada-British Columbia Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement: (a) which party first indicated intent to begin negotiations and on what date; (b) what was the substance of the federal government's initial position and proposal; (c) on what date did the discussions or negotiations begin; (d) on what date was the final agreement reached; and (e) what timelines were agreed to for making public the implementation of the agreement?

[Nuclear Energy, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, voluntary agreements just do not cut it. The eagerness of the Conservatives to sell nuclear technology to a country that has refused to sign the treaty is deeply concerning. As a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Canada has a moral obligation to ensure that its nuclear technology is used for peaceful purposes.

So, I ask again, are the Conservatives going to insist that India sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty before they sell it more nukes or uranium?

[Nuclear Energy, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the last time Canada sold nuclear reactors to India, it turned around and developed its first atomic weapon, with the unauthorized help of our nuclear technology. Many Canadians are concerned that removing the ban on nuclear sales with India could mean we will be fuelling the nuclear arms race in the region. India has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Given the current tensions in the region, what guarantees is the government demanding in exchange for restarting nuclear sales to India?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 16th, 2009]

With respect to Employment Insurance applications since January 2009 in Canada and in the federal riding of Vancouver East: (a) what is the increase in initial and renewed applications; (b) what is the average waiting time to have these applications processed; (c) have new staff been hired to deal with the increase in applications; (d) if so, how many people were hired and (i) what is the cost of this hiring; and (e) if not, how is the increase being dealt with and (i) what are the costs of processing the increase volume of applications beyond hiring new employees?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 16th, 2009]

With regard to the potential extradition of Marc Emery: (a) what discussions have taken place between Canadian and American authorities since the time of his arrest in July 2005; (b) who participated in these discussions; and (c) what positions were taken by the Canadian and American authorities at the varying stages of the discussion and negotiation process?