Canada is known the world over for its multiculturalism and diversity, often cited as an example for other countries on how to successfully combine different faiths, cultures, ethnicities, traditions and backgrounds in one peaceful society. We’re proud that people from all over the world call Canada their home.

Marking today as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is important – both to celebrate our successes but also to take stock of the work ahead of us.

Fifty years ago on this day, police opened fire and killed 69 people peacefully protesting against apartheid in Sharpeville, South Africa. Since 1966, the United Nations has used this day to encourage the international community to make efforts in eliminating all forms of discrimination. I urge all Canadians to join the international effort for justice, fairness and equality for all and to eliminate racism and intolerance in all its ugly forms

Today, New Democrats pay tribute to the formidable Francophone communities across Canada, on the occasion of the International Day of Francophonie.

“Franco-Canadians have made tremendous contributions here at home and around the world, thanks to the unique diversity of their communities, be they in the east, west, north or south of Canada,” said New Democrat Leader Jack Layton.

“Whether living and contributing in Quebec, or being part of a French community anywhere else in Canada, Francophones have found a way to make an immeasurable mark on all our lives,” added NDP Francophonie Critic Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt).

Canada has been a founding member of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie since 1970. La Francophonie is comprised of 56 states and governments and 14 observers from all five continents. French is spoken by 200 million people around the world and is an official language in 32 states and governments.
“Together with my Acadian community, I will join with Francophones on every continent to celebrate our common language and values,” added NDP Official Languages Critic, Yvon Godin (Acadie-Bathurst).

Parliament must conduct an inquiry into the behaviour of the Harper government’s appointees to the board of Rights and Democracy. The organization is accountable to Parliament, and the conduct of its board members is governed by an act of Parliament.

The conduct of the Harper appointees on the board has resulted into the resignation of two distinguished directors. The chairman of the board and the interim president have fired three of the organization’s managers, imposed a gag order on the staff and subjected them to investigation. Along with this belligerent conduct, the slew of unspecified contracts they have awarded to private investigators, auditors and legal and communications firms raise serious concerns about financial accountability.

Rather than holding its appointees to account, the Harper government engaged a controversial new president despite the objections of the leaders of the opposition parties. The government’s involvement in this crisis has undermined Canada’s international reputation.

The Conservative members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have chosen to filibuster discussions of the issue, in an effort to avoid accountability and transparency. On March 18th they attempted to block a request by Suzanne Trépanier, who is the wife of former Rights and Democracy President Rémy M. Beauregard, to appear before the committee. Mr. Beauregard died on January 8, 2010. New Democrats support Mme Trépanier’s appearance at committee, and believe that her testimony will assist Parliamentarians in their efforts to hold the board and the government to account.

New Democrats will continue working through the committee to hold the government appointees to account.

OTTAWA – New Democrat MP, Yvon Godin (Acadie–Bathurst), wants the Minister of Justice to rectify the serious error made in 2008 when two unilingual anglophone judges were appointed to full-time positions on the Nova Scotia Supreme Court that were previously occupied by bilingual judges.

“With just one bilingual judge on the province’s Supreme Court,” Mr Godin said, “the language rights of Nova Scotia’s francophone and Acadian communities are not secure. This solitary bilingual judge might have to recuse himself for any number of reasons or he could be called upon to hear cases in French in the province’s Court of Appeal. The current situation considerably limits access to judicial services in French in Nova Scotia. That is why I am urging the Minister of Justice to make sure that the next two judges he appoints are bilingual.”

In 2008, the appointment of anglophones to replace two bilingual judges on the Nova Scotia Supreme Court shocked the Association des juristes d’expression française de la Nouvelle-Écosse (AJEFNE) and the province’s francophone and Acadian communities. At that time the AJEFNE, a non-profit organization whose mandate is to promote the accessibility of judicial services in French to Nova Scotia’s Acadian, francophone and francophile population, asked Canada’s Minister of Justice to consider a policy favouring more frequent appointments of bilingual judges to all the province’s superior courts.

“The AJEFNE made a number of submissions regarding the appointment of bilingual judges to the Senate Committee on Official Languages, the federal and provincial ministers of justice as well as community and legal partners. Regrettably, despite these efforts, no progress has been noted at the federal level,” said AJEFNE Director General Marie-Claude Rioux.

In April, two positions on the bench will have to be filled for the Yarmouth and Sydney regions, both of which have a significant proportion of residents who are French-speaking. “The requests of the AJEFNE and the francophone and Acadian community are straightforward and legitimate,” said Mr. Godin. “Let’s have members of Nova Scotia’s francophone and Acadian community on the recommending committee, and let’s have bilingual judges appointed to both upcoming vacancies.”

OTTAWA – The government’s failure to deliver documents on Afghan detainees to MPs is “tantamount to contempt,” says New Democrat Defence Critic Jack Harris (St. John’s East).

“The prime minister’s refusal to respect the will of Parliament is a serious abuse of power. He is not a king. He answers to the will of Parliament, not the reverse,” said Mr. Harris.

Harris, speaking on a question of privilege in Parliament on Thursday, said the government’s refusal to deliver the documents on the grounds of national security is a red herring.
“The documents can be delivered in a manner that safeguards national security. It’s been done before. What Mr. Harper is saying is that he doesn’t trust opposition MPs. That is insulting. His culture of secrecy has limited Parliament’s ability to engage in an informed debate about our role in Afghanistan.”
If the Speaker accepts Harris’s argument, the NDP MP will introduce the following motion:
That the House considers the government’s failure to provide the documents specified in the Order of December 10, 2009, is tantamount to contempt, and therefore orders the Minister of National Defence, the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be called to the Bar of the House immediately and hear the Speaker read this order to them;

That it be an instruction to the Special Committee on Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan to adopt rules and procedures for the reception and handling of the documents demanded by the House Order of December 10, 2009, in a manner that safeguards national security and other confidentiality requirements while respecting parliamentary privilege; after receiving advice from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel,

That the Special Committee report these rules and procedures to the House no later than 21 calendar days following the adoption of this order, provided that if the House is not sitting when the report of the Committee is completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House; provided that no later than 6:00 PM on the 20th calendar day following the adoption of this order, any proceedings before the Special Committee shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the report shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; and

That, on the 30th calendar day following the adoption of this order, if the government has not provided all the documents to the Special Committee, which shall receive them on behalf of the House, in their original and uncensored form, at the next sitting of the House, the first order of business shall be the consideration of a motion, “That the Minister of National Defence, the Attorney General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs be found in contempt of the House” and that such a motion shall have priority over all other business until it is decided, in the same fashion as a motion relating to a question of privilege.

Yesterday in Question Period, Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore showed just how disconnected he is from his own iPod, and those he purports to represent: Canada’s artistic creators.

In response to a question by a government MP, Minister Moore resorted to baseless falsehoods to attack Bill C-499, legislation introduced by NDP MP Charlie Angus which seeks to modernize the successful Private Copying Levy regime so it applies to the current generation of digital copying devices. Mr. Angus also introduced a motion on “fair dealing” that would protect the reasonable use of copyrighted materials for innovation, research, and study.

“Mr. Speaker, the NDP … [has] proposed legislation that would impose a massive new tax on Canadians. The last time an iPod tax was put forward it was up to $75 per iPod, a massive tax on consumers.” – James Moore, Hansard, March 17, 2010.

Reality Check:

• Mr. Angus’s legislation supports no such tax, it calls for a mechanism to fairly compensate artistic creators for their work, as defined by a 2005 Federal Court decision which estimated a levy of approximately $2 per device.
• If Mr. Moore is so opposed to such levies, why does his government continue to support the 1997 Private Copying Levy which compensates artists for material recorded to old fashioned tapes and CDs?
• Last year Mr. Moore admitted he “watches more television on my iPod than I do on an actual conventional television set or through my personal video recorder” (Canwest News, May 10, 2009). Under his own government’s proposed copyright legislation, Bill C-61, this would be illegal, making Minister Moore liable to punitive fines and jail time. Why is Mr. Moore opposed to legislation that would actually legalize his own use of digital material?

James Moore is free to position himself on the wrong side of Canadian consumers and artists, but here’s what others have to say about Charlie Angus’s Bill:

• “This approach is precisely what thousands of Canadians supported during last summer’s copyright consultation. It strikes the right balance – it’s fair dealing, not free dealing – and it is based on current Canadian jurisprudence. Greater fair dealing flexibility benefits creators, innovators, educators, and the broader public. The motion deserves strong support from all parties.” –Michael Geist, March 16, 2010;
• “Bill C-499 brings much-needed balance to our out-of-date copyright laws. It allows Canadians to enjoy music when and how they want while ensuring that artists get paid regardless of how technology develops.” – Stephen Waddell, ACTRA National Executive Director, March 16, 2010
• “The private copying levy has put over $180 million in the pockets of over 97,000 composers, musicians and other rights holders. But with very few people still using audio cassettes and blank CDs, the money flowing to artists from the levy is heading for extinction. Without this important change to the private copying levy, many recording musicians and writers will not be able to continue their careers.” – Bill Skolnik, Vice President from Canada, American Federation of Musicians (AFM), March 16, 2010

OTTAWA – A dangerous gap between U.S. and Canadian food inspection practices highlights the Conservatives’ failure to fix Canada’s food safety system, says New Democrat Food Safety Critic Malcolm Allen (Welland).

Plants packaging meat for the U.S. market are inspected daily in order to meet U.S. standards, while plants that package meat for Canadian dinner tables are inspected only once a week.

“This double standard is unacceptable. Canadian lives are not worth less than American lives, and exports should not be more important than the safety of Canadian families,” said Allen.

The government recently increased inspections at U.S.-bound meat processing plants to every 12 hours after the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service determined that Canadian food inspections failed to meet U.S. safety standards, putting the export market in jeopardy.

Existing CFIA food inspectors are being worked overtime to make up the gap. While the government promised 70 new inspectors in September 2009, CFIA lacks enough inspectors to meet the increased requirement. According to the meat inspectors’ union, no additional inspectors have actually joined the front lines of food inspection.

“The government was quick to respond to a threat to U.S. food safety, but has yet to ramp up Canadian inspections to match, and still hasn’t hired enough inspectors to do the job,” said Allen. “It’s been two years since the listeriosis crisis, and eight months since the Weatherill report told the government how to fix the system. Why is it taking them so long to act?”

Investigators are probing an unusual number of listeriosis cases, including five deaths in Ontario this year. Two illnesses have recently been linked to a listeriosis recall of Siena brand deli meats.

“Deli sandwiches and kids’ lunches should not be a source of fear,” Allen said. “The government must start treating Canadian food safety as a priority.”

Yesterday, at the Special Committee on Afghanistan, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation enlightened everyone present on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to torture in Afghanistan:

“As a lawyer who is responsible to Amnesty International, would you agree with me that the Geneva Convention does not apply in Afghanistan because it is not a state to state conflict? And would you further agree that your answer that you were worried, if I understood you correctly, that you were worried that we could be, or the soldiers could be, subject to the laws under the Geneva Convention, you were worried about that? Considering that it doesn’t apply, would you agree? Why would you answer that irresponsible question, with an irresponsible answer?” Jim Abbott, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation, Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, March 17, 2010

The Geneva Conventions (That’s right Jim, plural) specifically prohibit torture in the case of an armed conflict not of an international character. Have a look:

Common Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

More voices are calling for Helena Guergis to resign following her blowout at the Charlottetown airport. She has threatened legal action against the Air Canada employees she allegedly tormented by throwing boots and screaming but has apparently been persuaded to reconsider suing them for telling the public about her tantrum. But that threat has only fuelled Canadians’ disgust at the Conservative culture of entitlement.

Should she resign? If she were to take her own advice, yes. Here’s a look at Guergis’ history with that magic word, “resign”:

On allegations that Judy Sgro used her Ministerial office to grant a visa to a stripper who subsequently worked on her re-election campaign:

“Will the minister finally be accountable? Will the minister do the right thing and resign?” Helena Guergis, Hansard, December 07, 2004

“Mr. Speaker, it is time for the minister to stop hiding behind the Ethics Commissioner and to start accepting the responsibility that Canadians demand. When will the disgraced and incompetent minister resign?” Helena Guergis, December 08, 2004

“Is she still claiming ignorance, or will she finally admit her incompetence, rethink her answer of yesterday, and resign?” Helena Guergis, Hansard, December 08, 2004

On Prime Minister Paul Martin, when he re-scheduled confidence votes:

“Shame on the Prime Minister. He refused to resign after his government was defeated in the House of Commons. The Liberals can no longer avoid Canadian voters. The Liberals are corrupt and they are ruining the country’s finances.” Helena Guergis, Hansard, May 16, 2005

On Belinda Stronach crossing the floor:

“During her leadership campaign, [Belinda Stronach] advocated term limits for prime ministers. Is she hoping the Prime Minister will accept her idea and resign?” Helena Guergis, Hansard, May 18, 2005

OTTAWA – Following hearings into the Toyota vehicle recall, New Democrat Automotive Critic Brian Masse is calling for the government to implement reforms to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and provide more resources to Transport Canada.

“Canadians deserve the same robust oversight, regulation and enforcement as consumers in the United States do,” said Masse. “Inaction by the Conservative government has left Canadian consumers with nothing compared to their American neighbours.”

New Democrats are calling for Transport Canada to have the power to order recalls, establish an ‘early warning system,’ and convert voluntary compliance to mandatory compliance. Additionally, the Transport Canada Defects Investigation unit needs to obtain the tools and additional staff resources it needs to deal with the complexity of modern vehicles. As of now they have only a staff of ten.

“Even Toyota stated at the committee hearings that Transport Canada needs more staff. The government has to stop leaving safety to foreign companies and make these changes to the legislation,” said Masse.

The National Highway Safety Administration’s is conducting a thorough examination of the electronic components and software of Toyota vehicles. Transport Canada has declined to investigate these Toyota components. But south of the border, investigations have led to major changes that are protecting U.S. consumers and Canadians as well.

“We should not have to depend on a foreign country’s regulators to protect our citizens,” said Masse.

Congressional hearings in Washington by several committees have led to commitments by Toyota Motor Corporation to disclose information that was previously withheld concerning vehicle recalls and remedies worldwide. Toyota has also stated it would establish an Automotive Centre of Quality Excellence with a significant investment of resources and personnel. There have been no equivalent announcements or commitments in Canada. The US Congressional hearings have also led to the release of documents detailing Toyota’s Washington lobbying office boasting of saving the company $100 million by not instituting recalls.