Mario Silva

[The Environment, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the agenda of the environment committee ground to a halt today due to Conservative members filibustering the committee. This is shameful and unprecedented.

Clearly the Conservatives do not care about climate change and do not care about the environment. We, as members of the committee, are prepared to deal at our committee with the most important issue of climate change and the most important issues facing the environment.

[Portuguese Community, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian MP of Portuguese heritage, it is my great honour to pay tribute to the community of Portuguese language countries: the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa. It is a multilateral forum for Lusophone nations across the globe.

This year marks the CPLP's 10th anniversary. On this occasion I would like to congratulate the CPLP in the name of all Canadians. As chair of the Canada-Portugal and Canada-Brazil Parliamentary Friendship Groups, I am proud of the strong friendship which Canada has with the Lusophone nations which this auspicious anniversary highlights.

Furthermore, I would like to thank His Excellency Valdemar Carneiro Leão, the Ambassador of Brazil and João Pedro Da Silveira Carvalho, the Ambassador of Portugal, and indeed all the embassies of CPLP countries who have worked diligently to build a relationship between Canada and the Lusophone countries.

[Canada Labour Code, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate in the House Bill C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, it is important that we recognize that at its core this debate is about protecting workers in this country. It is for this reason that I intend to support this legislation.

Even the most basic economic theory recognizes that within any economic system the role of labour is an essential component. People within the workforce are basically asked to provide their labour in return for income.

Therefore, with this most basic economic concept in mind, we need to recognize that for workers the security of their job during a labour dispute is not only an important consideration but an inalienable right.

It was not long ago that workers in this country, and in many similar nations, were required to work in conditions that today would seem unimaginable. For their labour they were compensated, but not at an acceptable level. Nor were they reasonably protected within the workplace. In terms of job security, quite frankly, there was none.

Today much has changed. There is much that still needs to be done. Workers across Canada and in many nations around the world are protected by minimum standards outlined in statutes and further enhanced by union representation.

In my home province of Ontario the basic rights of working people is contained within the Employment Standards Act which outlines standards and reasonable levels of protection workers can expect in this province.

The law enshrines only the most basic rights and there are many who would argue that statutes such as these do not go anywhere near the level of protection that workers really need. Many workers are further protected by the efforts of their union representatives who represent them in collective bargaining agreements.

These unions are also of great service to young people by way of training programs and the like. They also advocate on a variety of labour issues and, like union leaders before them, they fight for workers' rights to protect the hard won advancements workers now enjoy.

In fact, I have been pleased over the years to work with various union leaders such as Ucal Powell, Carlos Pimentel and Mike Yorke of the Carpenters and Allied Workers Union. These people, like so many others in the labour movement, are committed to serving their members.

As a former city councillor, I was instrumental in implementing the city's fair wage policy. The policy set a standard that continues to resonate throughout the public and private sectors and in particular those who choose to do business with the city of Toronto. These are important steps forward for working people in our cities, provinces and the country as a whole.

With respect to Bill C-257, it is important to recognize that in this country the provinces retain the constitutional power to legislate labour regulations and standards for most workers within their jurisdictions. However, the unique nature of our Confederation means that there are many employees in this country who are not covered under federal law.

Those who fall into this category look to the Canada Labour Code for the security other workers may find in their corresponding provincial statutes. Only two provinces in this country, Quebec and British Columbia, have in place statutes that protect the jobs of workers who are participating in a legal labour dispute.

As noted, the fundamental negotiating tool available to workers is their labour. Their work is the commodity they offer in return for their compensation.

There are many international conventions that recognize and encourage this right. For example, the 1981 collective bargaining convention of the United Nations reaffirms that the international labour organization has a solemn obligation to further among nations of the world programs which will achieve the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. This statement speaks of the right of workers to secure effective collective bargaining, including the right to strike that should not be undermined.

It is really quite inconceivable that workers who are involved in a legal work stoppage would have to stand by and watch as their jobs are filled, even if only temporarily, by other people hired by their employers. Without the ability to withdraw their labour, then what do these workers have to negotiate with during periods of collective bargaining?

If employers can simply replace their employees with alternates, then clearly the motivation for an expeditious settlement is removed from the management side of the negotiating equation.

I would note and believe this may have already been pointed out by other members that in the provinces where legislation does prevent replacement workers, there are generally less intense labour-management disputes. What I mean is that the average number of days that employees are on strike in provinces that prevent replacement workers is significantly less than those where they are permitted.

In the provinces that prevent replacement workers, it is clear that there is a greater incentive on the part of employers to negotiate in good faith with employees. The statistics clearly back this assertion.

Similarly, when one looks back at the most contentious and bitter periods of labour unrest, it is quite clear that these periods included attempts by employers to use replacement workers, either permanently or temporarily. This is another major incentive for the House to pass into law Bill C-257.

It can be reasonably argued that the inability of employers to hire replacement workers helps to reduce the intensity of labour disputes in the same way that it clearly reduces the length of work stoppages. There are those who have argued that implementation of the bill would have dire consequences for the nation's economy and for labour-management relations. This is simply not supported by the facts.

Indeed, as noted above, there are two provinces within Canada that have already implemented this kind of legislation and there have not been any of the major problems that some have warned would occur.

The bill before the House deals with the Canada Labour Code. It is a piece of legislation that would apply to all federally regulated workers in Canada. It would not have the force of law within provincial jurisdictions that have not yet adopted this kind of labour protection.

As stated in this debate, only Quebec and British Columbia have laws of this kind. However, by proceeding to pass Bill C-257 we would as a federal government be setting an example for those other provinces. Like the Canadian Labour Congress or the Canadian Auto Workers, I support Bill C-257 because it sets a standard of protection for federally regulated workers across the country.

I encourage all members of the House to join with me in supporting Bill C-257 in order to extend to workers in this country the job security they need and deserve.

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need new legislation to beef up monitoring and enforcement, we just act. We do not need a new bill to strengthen CEPA.

Why does the minister want to waste five years putting together a new bill when CEPA already gives her every possible tool she needs to act?

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, before the environment committee, the Minister of the Environment said that before the Conservative government could do anything on climate change, a clean air act was needed. However, we already have some of the toughest and most efficient environmental laws in the world: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A new bill would take five years before it could be put into place.

What is so deficient about CEPA? Could the minister name one thing in her bill that cannot be done under CEPA? Why does the government prefer delay over action?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I absolutely agree with my hon. colleague's statement. It is very important that we do that and move as quickly as possible.

The government needs to act diplomatically, which is absolutely necessary at the international level, but we also need to get moving with a resolution that calls for a UN force. We should be there right now because the tragedy is going on before our eyes. If we are not prepared to do anything about it we are in compliance with what is happening in that country.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, what happens when diplomacy fails is what happens when a government like the one in Khartoum decides to use diplomacy as a tool to continue to debate and debate and have delays and delays and at the same time is involved in a genocide that is going on in that country. That is the real truth of what is happening.

Most international human rights experts and leaders have recognized the fact that genocide is taking place in our midst. We can debate this ad nauseam. The UN has had several resolutions. However, we need action. It is no longer a question of not knowing. We do know a tragedy is taking place and there have been massive killings. As the foreign minister mentioned, a lot of gender based violence is taking place in that country and we need to take concrete action.

I think Canadians understand that this situation warrants every attention and our involvement. We need to take immediate action because we are talking about stopping the genocide. We have signed international conventions and treaties stating that we will act to stop a genocide.

We have also signed on to the Responsibility to Protect Protocol and we must live by that piece of work that we put forward to the UN.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, it was the writer, Edmund Burke, who stated:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

The situation in Darfur demonstrates the absolute truth of that statement.

Tonight, we in this House are called upon to do something. It is a call that must be heard across our country and around the world and it is a call that must be answered.

It is generally accepted that over the past few years, approximately 400,000 people have lost their lives. Between 2.5 million and 3 million people have been displaced from their homes. More than 3.5 million people are currently reliant on international aid just to survive.

The United Nations Security Council has passed one resolution after the other without any real or measurable results. Resolution 1651, Resolution 1591, Resolution 1556 and now Resolutions 1665 and 1706 were passed just a few days ago. While it continually recognizes the need for action, the reality is that no substantive undertakings on the part of the international community have been initiated.

The current African Union force in the Darfur region is overwhelmed, underfunded and, despite good intentions, simply ineffective in preventing the continuing persecutions taking place in Sudan.

It has been proposed that a force of at least 17,000 to 20,000 United Nations soldiers are needed to replace the African Union troops currently placed in the Darfur region. The Government of Sudan rejects any United Nations force and the devastating death toll and unimaginable human suffering simply continues. The international community has an obligation to act, as do we here in Canada.

Prior to the summer recess of our colleagues in the Senate, Senator Roméo Dallaire noted that “Canada must lead by example”. He is absolutely right.

The report of the foreign affairs committee speaks to the need for an immediate mission in Sudan and calls upon the government to support this mission through all diplomatic, economic and military means available.

The time for action is now. We need no further review, no further negotiations and it will not be done by simply passing resolutions.

Have we not learned any lessons from Rwanda where hundreds of thousands of human lives were lost in unspeakable brutality while the world stood by, finally taking action when so much had already been lost?

Darfur has been at a persistent crisis level for at least three years and yet we in the international community seem either unable or, more accurately, unwilling to do what is necessary to end this terrible situation. When the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, describes the situation in Darfur as “dire”, he means just what he says.

There will be dire consequences for the people of Darfur should the world continue to be locked in a pattern of discussion all the while not undertaking substantive action. The action that needs to be taken in Darfur is really quite simple even though the nature and origins of this conflict are complicated. It is most certainly not without risk; indeed, the risk is significant.

However, inaction is no longer tolerable or excusable. We must constitute a force of at least 20,000 well supplied and supported United Nations soldiers to be immediately deployed into the region. This is the first step and then we can begin to address the root causes of this conflict. However, the first step is to stop the suffering and the killings.

The international community cannot be intimidated by the words of the Government of Sudan when it continually rejects an international force. Many nations are calling upon all parties to accept the terms of the peace treaties that were negotiated, but clearly this is not having any real effect.

Regardless of whether or not the parties want or accept an international force, the truth is simply that it is the obligation of the world community to act definitively and decisively. This is especially true when parties to conflicts like that in Darfur continue to demonstrate no real will or desire to desist from their brutal activities.

Generations to come will scarcely believe that we could stand by and watch such human tragedy. The world must act now. Canada must act now. Canada must lead the way.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-284, introduced by my hon. colleague, the member for Halifax West.

For centuries now, the importance of a sound education has been one of the hallmarks of public policy, not just in Canada but across the nations of the world. A sound and fulfilling education not only serves the interests of the students who benefit from their studies, but the society in which they choose to practice the skills they have learned.

By ensuring that our young people receive the best possible education, we are also ensuring that our society thrives, grows and prospers. It was the Irish poet, W.B. Yeats, who stated: “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire”. In providing young Canadians with the opportunity to obtain a thorough and balanced education, we are, as a society, lighting the fire of wonder in their hearts and minds, a fire that will illuminate our country for generations to come.

It is in this vein that I support my colleague's bill, which would amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

The bill would provide for Canada access grants to eligible Canadians who have permanent disabilities. It recognizes, implicitly, the unique challenges faced by persons with disabilities in their efforts to obtain a post-secondary education.

No one in the House will be unfamiliar with the very real challenges that face students in contemporary Canadian society. It is truly heart-rending to hear the stories of so many young Canadians who simply cannot afford to pursue their education to the extent that they would like, simply as a result of financial barriers.

This challenge is particularly real for persons with disabilities, who may not have the same opportunities to supplement their incomes while attending school as other students might find available to them. Furthermore, I believe we, as Canadians, have an obligation to assist those with disabilities to ensure that they have the same opportunities as their fellow citizens to choose whatever career path they wish to pursue.

I join with my colleagues in wishing to see this bill pass, but fear that it might not succeed. This is because the government seems to have decided to abandon the important role of the federal government with respect to education. The delivery of education may be a provincial responsibility, but as the last government demonstrated, there is much that the national government can do as well.

When the members of the New Democratic Party decided to bring down the previous Liberal government, they chose political expediency over the best interests of Canadians. As a result, much was lost for students.

Members might recall the financial statements of the then Liberal finance minister, the member for Wascana, as he outlined an enormous progressive plan to assist young Canadians to realize their full potential in terms of educational opportunities. This plan committed $2.2 billion over five years to improve financial assistance by making post-secondary education more affordable for lower and middle income Canadians. This was an incredible commitment to help ensure that all Canadians, regardless of their means, had the opportunity to obtain a sound education.

The Liberal fiscal plan also called for $550 million over five years to extend Canada access grants, the subject of our discussion here today. This would have covered 55,000 students from lower income families in all years of undergraduate education. We would also have seen $265 million over five years for Canadians with disabilities to assist them in participating in the workforce.

These commitments were real and they would have gone a long way toward assisting young Canadians with their educational objectives. Members of this caucus have and continue to hold a solid and real commitment to Canadian students.

In keeping with the Liberal commitment to education, I was myself pleased to introduce in the House Bill C-316, an act to establish a national literacy policy. It is truly disheartening that upwards of 38% of Canadians have difficulties reading and writing.

We all know that the most fundamental requirement for education and career advancement is the ability to read and write at a reasonable level of proficiency. The reality is that illiteracy in this country costs the economy approximately $10 billion annually, not to mention the ongoing daily struggles of those who have to contend with limited skills when it comes to reading and writing.

Similarly, it is also true that there is a serious lack of funding for literacy programs in Canada and an even more pressing need for a coordination of services. We need to implement a national literacy strategy with long term programs designed to assist all Canadians who need this kind of help in realizing their full potential both in their academic and professional careers.

Members of this House have acknowledged that without proper educational training the future of many young Canadians is less than bright. There are fewer and fewer jobs available to those who do not possess the kind of skills now required in the workplace. The quandary many young Canadians find themselves in is that they cannot access those jobs without the needed education, yet they cannot afford to obtain the skills that are needed.

It is important that we act on this issue of the need for literacy programs and financial assistance for students, particularly those with disabilities. We must also ensure that we recognize the need to make a real commitment to adequate funding of education in this country.

Education is the foundation upon which the future of this country will be built. There is no benefit to shortchanging our future by failing to adequately invest in the education of young Canadians. The reality is simply that in creating the kinds of programs that will encourage support and sustain our young people in their educational journey, we will be ensuring that the workforce of the future will be able to meet the needs of our economy.

Bill C-284 recognizes the need to assist those who need the help the most in realizing their full potential as students and future employees. In providing this kind of support, we are truly inviting all Canadians to the table. We need to expand programs such as those proposed in this bill, as well as those put forward in Bill C-316 which would promote literacy across Canada.

These programs are investments in the future of our young people, the future of our country and in reality, the future of our planet. There is a role for Canada in the world. When encouraging our young people to strive to reach their maximum potential, we by implication do the same for our country itself.

[Business of Supply, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. However, the more I listened to her speech, the more it came to mind that if her statements are accurate, every poll shows and research shows that most women do not support the Conservatives. It has always been known in every election that 50% of the population has a serious issue with the Conservative Party. Be it on child care, issues of the environment, social issues, women in general have been very, very suspicious of the Conservative agenda. It will show again in election after election that the vast majority of Conservative Party voters and supporters are male.

If her party, as she stated, is supportive of equality for women, I wonder why so many women out there are just not attracted to the Conservative Party?