Mario Silva

[Air Transportation, October 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims to have established a so-called good relationship with the Bush White House.

Yet, we can only wonder what a good relationship really means when the Bush administration is forcing Canadian air carriers to hand over personal information about passengers and the government is afraid to stand up for Canadians and say no.

Why will the government not stand up for Canada and say it is unwilling to allow this unreasonable intrusion from the Bush administration?

[Air Transportation, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, under the American secure flight program, Canadian airlines will be required to provide personal information on passengers who are not even flying to the U.S. This violation of privacy is without precedents.

Who would want this kind of information in the hands of the Bush administration?

Why has the government done absolutely nothing to protect the rights of Canadians? Whatever happened to standing up for Canada?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason that the NDP is very low in the polls, which is because Canadians in general know the NDP's record. On one hand, the NDP members constantly say that they stand up for working families. Yet when there is an opportunity to work collaboratively, especially in the last minority government, they are the first ones to attack the Liberal government. In fact, the New Democratic Party in this House has spent more time attacking the opposition than it has the government. So much for an effective opposition.

Let us look at the NDP agenda and the things it talks about, such as increasing the minimum wage to $10. Let us look at two provincial governments where the NDP is in power. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have lower minimum wages than Ontario. The NDP talks big but once it gets into power, it does the exact opposite.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes I am. This party is committed to democratic reform, democracy in our institution and respect for our institution, which I find is so lacking on the government side.

One thing that concerns me is that the Prime Minister, when he was a member of the Reform Party, talked about giving a greater role to members of Parliament and yet his total caucus is silent on all issues. They cannot speak unless they get authorization from the Prime Minister's Office. His ministers cannot even have press conferences unless they first have everything vetted and get a personal stamp of approval by the PMO. I find this is totally outrageous. It belittles the work and the responsibility of ministers of the crown. It also belittles the work of members of Parliament who are here to represent their constituencies.

We have seen so many examples of members of Parliament who have been tossed out by the government when they do speak their mind. This is totally outrageous.

Having a vote of confidence on every issue and clause that goes before this House and the committee is totally outrageous. It is an affront to Parliament to say to members of Parliament and to this House that we cannot amend a bill from the government because that would be a vote of confidence and it will go before the electorate. That is an affront to this Parliament and it is totally unjust. It speaks of a Prime Minister who speaks of democracy but who is a control freak and who is totally opposed to democracy and our democratic institutions.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is an ancient Chinese proverb that states, “we are cursed to live in interesting times”, and these are certainly interesting times. The Speech from the Throne is a general statement of the government's objectives. These speeches are often remembered more for what they do not address as opposed to the issues they actual raise.

Notwithstanding all of this bluster, what of the content in the Speech from the Throne? What about the issues of importance to Canadians? We hear a great deal of chatter in the speech with respect to our national sovereignty and yet in practice the government action leaves a great deal to be desired.

For example, where is the government in regard to the recent outrageous proposal from the United States administration with respect to airline passenger lists? What could be more important to our sovereignty than protecting the privacy and personal rights of our nation's citizens? We hear no challenge from the government to the Bush administration's demand that Canadian airlines provide names, dates of birth, gender, travel itinerary and track information for passengers originating in Canada even though they do not even land in the United States.

If the Prime Minister wants to protect our sovereignty, I suggest he start by refusing to provide this information to the Bush administration. This is clearly an issue of sovereignty and the rights of Canadians need to be protected by their own government. Speaking of sovereignty, we need only to look at the issue of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to see the issue of the actual level of commitment to the basic rights of our first nations peoples.

While I commend the government for some of the statements made in the throne speech with respect to aboriginal issues, there is so much more of substance that needs to be done.

We all remember the Kelowna accord. It was a landmark agreement between the previous Liberal government, provincial leaders and first nations peoples.

When the members of the New Democratic Party joined with the Conservative Party to defeat the Liberal government in 2005, the fate of this historic accord was sealed along, I might add, with so many other progressive initiatives. It was a tragedy that the NDP would so easily cast its soul on the altar of political expediency but that is a debate for another day.

The Prime Minister did indeed withdraw from the Kelowna accord and effectively ended an historic opportunity to deal fairly with first nations peoples.

This past September, the United Nations General Assembly voted on whether to adopt the United declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Only four countries voted against the declaration and Canada was one of them.

The Conservative government reversed the previous Liberal government's commitment and voted against the measure. We need only listen to the words of Mr. Gary Highland, the national director of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation to know why. He speaks of the role of his country's prime minister, John Howard, a good friend of our Prime Minister.

He said:

It's common knowledge in Australia that Howard was responsible or had a major influence in changing the Canadian government's position.

Where is the leadership from Canada's government when foreign heads of government direct our government on how to vote at the United Nations?

I have met with various labour leaders in recent months to hear their increasing concerns about the need to protect manufacturing jobs in this country, among them, Gus Goncalves and Maria Pinto of the Canadian Auto Workers at the Bombardier Aerospace plant in Downsview, Ontario, who know that these jobs are threatened.

Manufacturing jobs in Canada are being lost at an alarming rate and urgent action needs to be taken. However, the message of these labour leaders and that of millions of Canadians is falling upon the deaf ears of the government. We had hoped there would be a real commitment in the throne speech to address this issue but again there were only platitudes and lack of substance.

Our environment is under siege. Climate change and greenhouse gases are real issues to be addressed, not political headaches to be shuffled aside as the government continually does.

It is truly disheartening that Canada, under the Conservative government, will be the only major signing nation to the Kyoto accord that is to withdraw from the commitment we made. The government needs to implement our Kyoto commitments and not spend so much energy finding ways to avoid them.

What about our role as a peacekeeping nation, one that the world looks to for leadership? We need to take action where action is so desperately needed. What about Darfur? Why does the government not take a role in helping to alleviate the suffering of so many millions of people in this region of the world? This is the most pressing humanitarian crisis facing the world community and yet the government continues its policy of inaction.

I commend the government's decision to bestow honorary citizenship upon Aung San Suu Kyi whose courage, perseverance and commitment to freedom is beyond exemplary. However, Canada should also be taking substantive steps to hold the military leadership in Burma to account for the terrible abuses taking place in that country.

Where in the speech is the commitment to students who are increasingly leaving school with enormous student debt? The previous Liberal government was putting in place the help they needed but the present government has done nothing of substance to assist Canada's students.

Many of our country's senior citizens are finding it increasingly more difficult to manage and yet there is no real help for them either. Where is the help for these great Canadians who have built our nation?

Families across the country continue to struggle. What about the national child care program that the previous Liberal government was implementing? Again, nothing.

In essence, we are speaking about the basic human rights of all Canadians, whether they are travelling abroad, are first nations peoples, older Canadians, students, parents and the list goes on.

I would note, speaking of human rights, that the government made reference to several anniversaries to be celebrated this year in Canada. While those noted in the throne speech are of significance, what about the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why was there no mention of one of Canada's greatest achievements? Would this be inconvenient for the government?

Those are but a few of the issues that the Speech from the Throne simply fails to deliver upon. There is no passion for the values of Canadians in this speech and no vision of what Canadians want to aspire to. It is really the remonstrations of managers when what we need is leaders.

I am reminded of a comment by the former British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill. He was asked by a young member of the British Parliament how he could put more fire into his speech. Churchill replied, “What you should have done is put the speech into the fire”.

I have spoken today on many issues of importance to Canadians. We can only hope in the months to come that these real concerns of Canadians will be addressed by the government.

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau Day Act, October 19th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, An Act to establish Pierre Elliott Trudeau Day.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to introduce my private member's bill that would designate October 18 each year Pierre Elliott Trudeau day. October 18 was the late prime minister's birthday.

Pierre Trudeau's innovation, dedication to Canada and truly progressive approach to public policy inspired me and countless other Canadians to become involved in the political process. This is my humble way of giving something back to him.

Generations to come will recall his name long after most of us here are forgotten, for he transformed our country, challenged us to think differently and encouraged us as people to take our place in the world.

I invite all members to join me in supporting the bill to declare October 18 Pierre Elliott Trudeau day.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Air Transportation, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this month Canadians learned about the proposal by the Bush administration that would see their personal details transferred to the United States government when they travel.

The proposal, known as secure flight, would force Canadian air carriers that fly over American air space to provide the personal details of their passengers to American authorities.

That is a serious violation of Canadian travellers' right to privacy. Our government has a duty to protect Canadians from foreign governments making such excessive demands.

In light of the abuse suffered by Maher Arar, Canadians are worried, and rightly so, when information pertaining to them is provided to Washington.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs must act immediately to ensure that Canadians, and in fact all passengers, travelling on Canadian air carriers are protected from this overzealous and unnecessary intrusion.

[Petitions, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my first petition in this second sitting of the 39th Parliament that calls on Parliament to reinstate the funding of literacy programs cut by the Conservative government.

The petitioners, who are from St. John's East, note the importance of literacy for social and economic development and the impact it has on our society. They recognize the need for Canada to help the 38% of Canadians who have trouble reading and writing. They also recognize the $17.7 million cut from the funding of literacy programs, which contributed $10 billion annually in literacy costs to Canada.

I stand with the petitioners from St. John's East in calling for a reinstatement of literacy funding and to undertake a national literacy strategy to ensure that all Canadians have an opportunity to achieve vital skills.

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the question I was trying to pose to the hon. member as he spoke in the House was that these are just slogans. We are not adding to the debate.

Really, every statistic out there has shown that this particular registry does in fact save lives. Will the member not agree with those statistics?

[Criminal Code, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak this late in the evening on this very important and critical issue.

Many times I get concerned by the rhetoric, especially on the slogans that are used: tough on crime; soft on crime. They are just slogans and add nothing to the real debate on crime and how to best manage this issue in our society.

Statistics show that tough gun laws and registration do in fact deal with reducing crime—