Olivia Chow

[Committees of the House, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, dismantling the Wheat Board is just another example of the government's assault on public institutions. It is an example of the government's insidious advancements of private interests and a clear abuse of power. A gag order is another example of that abuse. There is just too much secrecy and not enough transparency or oversight.

The Prime Minister was the past-president of the National Citizens Coalition and he spoke against the use of gag laws and called them unconstitutional. I am wondering why the Conservatives now condone this practice as an acceptable means of promoting the government's hidden agenda.

There are media reports recently pointing out that the Alberta Conservative government spent a million of public taxpayers' dollars over the past three years on a campaign to discredit the Wheat Board.

I am wondering what the hon. member thinks of this gag order by the government and the fact that it now has money to discredit the Wheat Board. What does the member think of this kind of practice?

[Toronto Port Authority, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has received the Roger Tassé review of the Toronto Port Authority's shady dealings, yet he has chosen not to release the report or take any action.

The port authority once again demonstrated its incompetence. Its new ferry to the island airport crashed on its very first run, but the minister has not even suspended operations and has given the green light for flights at the island airport next Monday. The lobbyists must have got to the Conservatives.

The ferry crash was a total farce, but could have easily been a tragedy. We can afford neither farce nor tragedy with airplanes in the heart of Toronto. Public safety is at stake. We need an international air safety audit, and to return the port authority back to the hands of Torontonians now so we can have a clean green waterfront.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the third set of petitions is regarding the deportation of hard-working families in Canada. Canada needs a lot of skilled labour and many of these people are working here right now.

The petitioners are asking Parliament for an immediate moratorium on the further deportation of families in Canada, to establish a worker permit system whereby families which have been in Canada for a few years would be able to work legally in Canada, and to change the immigration point system to reflect the full range of labour force needs in Canada, particularly the right of a willing employer to hire a willing worker.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions has 33 pages of signatures from people from across Canada, a lot of them from Toronto. If we are serious about clean air, we really must protect the rights of cyclists and their safety.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to introduce regulations under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act requiring side guards for large trucks and trailers to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from being pulled under the wheels of these vehicles.

[Petitions, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have three sets of petitions.

The first one has 32 pages of signatures from people in Toronto. They have a vision of a waterfront that is clean, green and vibrant. Unfortunately, the Toronto Port Authority is an unaccountable and rogue federal agency. It is subsidizing and expanding the island airport. This petition calls on Parliament to abolish the Toronto Port Authority, close the island airport, and return the waterfront to the people of Toronto.

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, Canada must not stand idly by while the atrocities continue in Darfur. Does the hon. member agree that it would be helpful if Canada asked the African Union to make a declaration specifically recognizing that the situation in Darfur fulfils the conditions for humanitarian intervention set out in article 4 d. of the AU constitution act and reiterate that under the circumstances the UN is the appropriate body to intervene in Darfur?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, a joint report recently published by Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms and Oxfam International reviewed many industrialized countries, including Canada, that are benefiting from the trade of arms to countries with arms embargoes. It is becoming increasingly easy and cost effective to outsource production and ship components around the world. Weapons-producing corporations are taking advantage of this and opening production facilities in China, India and other areas.

However, these areas are not subject to or do not uphold the embargoes that bind the industrialized states, so it is inevitable, under the present system, that weapons with Canadian components will arrive in Sudan and other countries with questionable human rights records. The recommendation is for more arms controls to be placed on the export of components from Canada and for those controls to be applied on Canadian companies operating facilities outside Canada as well.

Will the government take up this responsibility and ensure that no one is benefiting from the sale of arms to Sudan?

[Situation in Sudan, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Chair, with the displacement of over two million people and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Sudanese, the need for a capable force to intervene is essential to halt the conflict in Darfur.

Yes, the African Union's troops have already extended their mandate into December, and this force of 7,000 unfortunately has been criticized, largely for being ineffective at halting the intensifying conflict. This force is underfunded and lacks training in dealing with conflict situations.

The United Nations has passed legislation for a force of up to 20,000 troops needed and ready to be deployed in an appropriate mission. Through access to information, my colleague, the NDP critic and also the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, has discovered in the briefing notes that there are in fact 1,600 troops available that could be deployed. Some of these over 1,000 troops may be made available to be deployed to an appropriate UN mission.

Here is my question for the minister. Are you willing to commit troops so that if and when the UN says the mission is now appropriate, and we need to deploy troops there, you are able and ready to commit troops to this mission?

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we know that CMHC is supposed to be offering affordable housing for Canadians. After all, that is one of its mandates.

To keep a homeless person in a hospital bed costs at least $10,000. It costs $4,333 to keep that same person in a jail cell. It costs $1,932 for a bed in a homeless shelter. To provide a social housing unit it costs only $200 a month.

Does the member think the former Liberal government was, and now the Conservative government is being fiscally irresponsible in not spending the billions of dollars of profit of CMHC to build affordable housing, given that last year there was a record 30,000 tenants in Toronto alone facing eviction which is 10% higher than in 2004 and which we know is a sign of more trouble to come? Is it fiscally irresponsible for the government not to spend those billions of dollars in affordable housing through the provinces?

[An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA Identification, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we know legislation can be improved with a review. When the former Liberal government introduced this registry in 2000, a promise was given that a review would be done in five years. We were all looking forward to the opportunity to consult with police, police service boards and investigators. We were also looking forward to looking at other jurisdictions in other countries to see what part of the registry could be improved.

I think every member of the House would like to add missing persons and found human remains DNA indices to the National DNA Data Bank, the Lindsey law. Lindsey's mother, Judy Peterson, has been saying for a long time that it would be useful to have this kind of addition, either through present legislation or new legislation, and include it in the National DNA Data Bank.

Why is the review not being done? Why are we not pushing for a review? We were supposed to get a review in 2005 but it did not get done under the former Liberal government. I do not see it happening under the Conservative government.

Does the hon. member think that review is important so we do not do things in a piecemeal format? Would he support a separate registry or the same registry to allow for the taking of DNA of a missing person or found human remains?