Libby Davies - MP for Vancouver East

Libby urges Minister Finley to come clean about EI changes

Tue, 22 May 2012 16:05:15 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 17, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, employees pay into EI in good faith, but under the Conservatives fewer than 40% even qualify, and they want to restrict the rules even more.

The Conservatives claim they have no plans to force Canadians to choose between EI eligibility and relocating to other parts of the country. We know now the idea was not only being discussed, it was also focus-grouped.

Canadians deserve to know the truth. Will the minister table all of the planned changes to EI in this House?

Ms. Kellie Leitch (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we support and applaud the millions of Canadians who work hard every single day to improve their lives and that of their families. The economic action plan is committed to and has increased efforts to better connect Canadians who are unemployed with opportunities for employment. Our government has been very clear: we will connect Canadians with available jobs in their local areas. The study in question did not inform the policy discussion that took place in this House. I look forward to the NDP finally getting on board to support a jobs plan for this country.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are all over the map on this.

We have the Minister of Finance who compares his summer jobs at school to unemployed teachers looking for work, while the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development thinks EI is too lucrative.

One day the Conservatives are holding focus groups about encouraging people to relocate, and the next thing they are up in the House denying it.

EI belongs to the people who paid into it, not the Conservatives. Why will it not table its plans in this House for everybody to see?

Categorized:

Mulcair calls for an end to discrimination

Tue, 22 May 2012 14:29:50 +0000

Media Link:

Opposition leader holds press conference backed by gay MPs

Xtra News

Official Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair held a press conference May 17 on Parliament Hill to speak out against discrimination on the 10th anniversary of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. Backed by openly gay NDP MPs Dany Morin, Libby Davies, Philip Toone, Randall Garrison and Craig Scott, Mulcair called upon leaders of all Canadian political parties to set an example by implementing policies that remove barriers that block participation across party lines.

May 17, 2012

Bradley Turcotte

Categorized:

LGBT

Tell us what you think about the Conservative budget!

Libby Davies — Wed, 16 May 2012 18:57:01 +0000

The Conservative Budget Implementation Act 2012 is a “trojan horse” bill sneaking in hundreds of pages of harmful new measures that:

gut environmental protection;
threaten fisheries and other resources;
cut public pensions and job standards; and
undermine public health care.

The NDP is reviewing the budget and looking for you to tell us how it will impact you and your family.

Share your thoughts at:

http://budget2012.ndp.ca/

Categorized:

Federal Budget

Libby speaks out in support of a National Suicide Prevention Strategy

Tue, 15 May 2012 18:01:23 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 14, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-300. It came from committee and is now at third reading in the House. I would again like to congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward.

The NDP members on the health committee have been very supportive of the bill, as we have in the House at second reading. We will support the bill when it comes to a final vote. However, I want to reflect on the nature of the bill and what more we could possibly have done.

There is another bill in the House, Bill C-297, put forward by the member for Halifax. Although both bills deal with suicide prevention, they bring forward different strategies. Bill C-300, is much more of a limiting bill. It plays down the role of the federal government in establishing suicide prevention strategy and, unfortunately, there is nothing in the bill that pertains to First Nations consultation.

I recognize it is difficult to put every single group in a bill and say we should do this and that. However, the statistics show this is a very important health issue and systemic issue around inequality, cultural history and colonialism that does affect First Nations in Canada, aboriginal people.

The bill of the member for Halifax speaks to the need to directly engage the federal government with provincial ministers and First Nations, and support smaller communities and provinces that might not otherwise have the infrastructure to enact the strategies. She lays out a clear federal role. Bill C-297 outlines the need for First Nations, Inuit and Métis groups to be involved in the construction of the strategy. This is very important.

The bill we are debating today calls for defining best practices and promotes collaboration. These are very important and we certainly concur, but it is very disappointing that it does not go beyond that.

Bill C-297 is very comprehensive. It calls for the federal government to carry out 10 different projects, including a study of effective funding, surveillance to identify at-risk groups, establishing national standards and gaining cultural-based knowledge in preventing suicide.

At committee, my colleagues, particularly the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, and I put forward a number of amendments. These were based on the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention blueprint for a Canadian national suicide prevention strategy that came out in September 2009. This organization represents the service providers and the activists on the front line helping people who are in distress, who are at risk, in dealing with suicide and suicide prevention.

We put forward about 15 amendments. They really would have strengthened the bill. For example, one of them called for a distinct national coordinating body for suicide prevention to operate within the appropriate entities in the Government of Canada. Another amendment called for assessing and adopting where appropriate the recommendations and objectives outlined in the blueprint for a national suicide prevention strategy of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.

I want to put on the record here in the House that we tried very hard at committee to bring some amendments to the bill to strengthen it so it could go beyond an issue of best practices, collaboration and information sharing and take on some more specific objectives that are desperately needed.

We did hear a number of times that we should not worry about this because the Mental Health Commission of Canada would be addressing this in its report. Of course, since dealing with the bill at committee, that report came out last week, entitled “Changing Directions, Changing Lives”.

On page 13 of the report it reads:

...establishing whole-of-government and pan-Canadian mechanisms to oversee mental health-related policies; strengthening data, research, knowledge exchange, standards and human resources related to mental health, mental illness and suicide prevention.

That is not the only reference, but one that speaks strongly to the need for all levels of government to be involved.

While we are happy that the Mental Health Commission of Canada has included this issue in its new strategy that came out last week, it seems to me that we have missed an opportunity with this bill to look at some concrete specifics around setting up a national coordinating body, looking at better training or, more specifically, working with first nations.

We received a communication from the Assembly of First Nations after we dealt with the bill at committee. It sent some very good information that is very important for us to understand. It is really shocking. It is information that we know but when we speak about this issue it brings to mind how serious it is in the aboriginal community. The AFN points out that suicide now represents the greatest single cause of injury deaths in its population, according to a study done in 2003. It also points out that a closer examination of intentional self-harm or suicide across age groupings shows that the deaths due to suicide, as a proportion of all deaths, was the largest among first nations youth. It also points out that youth suicide is not a tragedy that is visited in equal measure in all native communities. In certain communities, the suicide rate is as much as 800 times their provincial average. These statistics cannot even begin to tell us the stories, the tragedy and the reality of what is happening in many smaller, remote communities and in urban centres.

I was disappointed and concerned that the bill did not reference the particular issues that are taking place in aboriginal communities. Amendments were put forward to include some of this important information and the need to be more specific in the bill but, surprisingly, they were turned down.

It worries me that this is becoming a pattern now. Some of the bills are fine in as far as they go but they are very informational. They are designed to create awareness. We had one just the other day on breast density, a similar kind of bill. I do not want to knock the bills in and of themselves, but it is really worrying that when there is a genuine effort to put forward amendments to improve and strengthen these bills, they seem to be automatically shot down. I have to wonder why.

Parliament should be constructive, particularly on private member's business. We should try to be constructive and work together on this bill on suicide prevention because we all agree that work needs to be done on this. There is no question that we all agree. Therefore, it is very concerning that the good faith attempts to strengthen and improve the bill were shut down one hundred per cent. I read out some of the information that came before us and it was basically ignored.

We will support the bill but we will also work very hard to support my colleague's bill, Bill C-297, the member for Halifax, because it is a much broader, comprehensive and very specific strategy that would clearly involve the federal government. That is what we need to do, particularly in light of the new report that just came out from the Mental Health Commission of Canada.

Categorized:

Health Care

Libby questions the Conservative government's changes to food and drug approvals

Tue, 15 May 2012 17:39:14 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 14, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the sweeping changes in the Conservative's budget would negatively impact the lives of Canadians.

One of the many disturbing changes would allow the Minister of Health to ignore current regulations and authorize the sale of products that contain harmful substances.

After gutting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and reducing the number of food inspectors, why is the government blatantly refusing to follow regulations that are essential to keeping Canadians and our food safe?

Hon. Gerry Ritz (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite and all Canadians that their food is safe. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency continues to play a major role inspecting imported foods as well as what we produce here domestically. There is still a growing number of inspectors out there on the front lines. We had put $100 million into last year's budget. We have put $51 million into this year's budget, which, of course, the NDP voted against.

Categorized:

Health Care

ON 40-YEAR ANNIVERSARY, NORTH COAST TANKER MORATORIUM AT RISK

Thu, 10 May 2012 20:39:32 +0000

BRITISH COLUMBIA – Forty years ago, the Canadian government introduced a moratorium banning oil tankers from the north and central coast of British Columbia. On the anniversary of the moratorium, the BC Caucus of NDP MPs released the following statement:

“As we approach the 40-year anniversary of the north coast tanker ban, the Conservative government is paving the way for unprecedented oil tanker traffic off BC’s coast and gutting the environmental review processes. In light of this, New Democrats are reiterating their call to uphold the ban, and protect BC waters from the risks of a devastating spill.

BC NDP MPs believe that the tanker moratorium is at risk due to the Conservative Government’s promotion of the proposed Northern Gateway Project.

The introduction of crude oil super tankers to BC’s North Coast proposed by this project would require eliminating the current tanker moratorium that has been in place for 40 years.

British Columbians have been clear – the risk of allowing super tankers off the coast greatly outweighs any benefit to our communities. An oil spill in the fragile coastal waters of British Columbia would irreversibly devastate BC’s coastline. Over 130 First Nations bands have also rejected the Northern Gateway project, as it tramples on the titles and traditional rights of these Nations. The Union of BC Municipalities also opposes the project.

In a historic vote on December 2010, the House of Commons passed an NDP motion directing the government to immediately introduce a legislated ban. The government has taken no action. worse, they chose to introduce massive regulatory changes in their 2012 budget which would weaken pipeline review processes and allow Ottawa to overrule any decision made by the National Energy Board.

British Columbians are proud of our stunning coastal waters. The coast directly and indirectly supports tens of thousands of jobs, brings visitors to our province and has deep spiritual significance for many peoples. Compromising this national treasure for short-term gain is short-sighted, irresponsible, and reckless.

We urge the Conservative government to bring forward a legislated ban on oil tankers to protect our coastline for future generations”

Categorized:

Environment

Libby urges the Conservative government to provide funding for the Mental Health Strategy

Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:54 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 9, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the Minister was full of self-congratulation yesterday about the mental health strategy put forward by the Mental Health Commission, then later in the day admitted there was no new money for this strategy.

She is dumping responsibility onto already strained provincial health budgets.

Mental health issues take a great toll on our families and on provincial budgets. Now that we finally have a strategy, we should get down to work.

Will the Minister show some leadership to make sure that the mental health strategy is implemented?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the strategy from the Mental Health Commission of Canada. As the opposition members know, members of the NDP did not support the commission that was established. Our government will continue to support the provinces and the territories in their efforts. That is why we have committed to a long-term stable funding arrangement that will see health transfers reach record high levels by the end of the decade.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP have called for a mental health strategy for years, but we also know that the government loves to download to the provinces and keep the money.

This is just another example of that. The government is starving provinces and territories with its new health care formula that will take away $31 billion, yet it is asking them to bear the brunt of this new strategy.

Why is the Minister putting responsibility on the backs of financially strained provinces? Does she truly want this new strategy to work?

Categorized:

Health Care

Libby speaks out in support of breast cancer screening

Wed, 09 May 2012 15:38:58 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 8, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak at report stage, the first hour of debate, to Bill C-314. I would like to congratulate the member for Barrie for bringing forward this bill. I agree that when we bring forward private members' business, whether it is a bill or a motion, it is an opportunity for each of us to show initiative, to bring forward an issue for greater awareness and, hopefully, get support in the House to make an advancement on that issue. There are women who live with dense breast tissue and may not be aware of their higher risk. There is still unfortunately too little known about the issue. So we very much appreciate this bill coming forward.

When we were at committee, we heard a number of fantastic witnesses. I agree with my colleague that the witnesses who shared their personal experience with us were very compelling. This tells us where things are and what it is that we need to do. I was struck by the witness who talked about innovation and new technologies. There is technology available that will assist women with dense breast tissue 100%. I am very concerned that even if women are aware of that, they may not be able to access the technology because of where they live. It may be very far to travel or they may not be able to afford the fees. It is a private service. It seems to run contrary to the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act: universality, accessibility, public administration, comprehensiveness and so on.

I want to put on record here at report stage that the NDP supports the bill. However, after we heard from the witnesses, our concern in committee was that the bill was quite limited in its scope. It talks about information and information sharing, best practices and creating better awareness. All of those things are an absolute must, but they are sort of the bottom floor. For us in the NDP, when we heard the witnesses, we felt that we needed to go some extra distance with the bill.

We introduced a number of amendments. The most significant amendment said, “working in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments to establish national standards for systematic breast cancer screening”. Unfortunately, that amendment and all the other amendments were defeated. It was disheartening that all of the amendments put forward in good faith from the opposition parties at the committee were turned down. I do not think they were beyond the scope of the bill. While I concur that information and awareness are very important, we could be doing so much more.

We are now more aware of which women are at risk. I believe this bill will help get a message out, and that is very important. However, we in the NDP believe that there should be a nationwide systematic breast cancer screening program for all women. It should be free of charge and it should be by self-referral. It is quite alarming that, for example, there is no screening program in Nunavut. This seems to be a glaring omission and speaks strongly to the need for a nationwide systematic screening program with standards for screening.

We heard from practitioners at the committee that if a woman has gone beyond a mammogram and is going for an ultrasound, even that can be very problematic. It depends on how experienced the practitioner is doing the ultrasound. It is not about human error, but it is a very delicate procedure in terms of what one is looking for. It did surprise me to hear that even if a woman has an ultrasound, it may not identify the fact she is at risk or may have cancer present.

Similarly, we all think that MRIs are a real window into what is going on. However, we heard that for women with dense breast tissue, even an MRI may not pick up their particular situation. We heard from a witness about the newest technology that involves 360° imaging.

This speaks to a lack of available screening and a lack of national standards to ensure that wherever one is in the country, one can be assured of getting the highest quality screening and care. Under the Canada Health Act, that is very much a part of our health care system.

I do not want to be negative, but the bill is mostly about information and awareness. While it is important, I feel that we missed an opportunity to do a lot more with this bill. Although opportunities were put forward at the committee, unfortunately the government members decided not to vote for those amendments. Now here we are at report stage with a bill that is quite limited in its scope.

We will support the bill because it is a step to providing much better awareness about dense breast tissue. I was not aware of it before I heard about the bill. It is an eye opener for all of us. For that it is commendable.

However, I wish that we had been able to strengthen the bill in the way that we wanted, and that we could have responded to witnesses' suggestions to the committee. Maybe at some point there will be another bill and we will get another opportunity.

When we hear from people at committee we should do our utmost to respond to what they say. We should listen in good faith to their suggestions. Where it is possible for us to incorporate those recommendations in a way that is realistic within a private member's bill, then why on earth would we not do that?

That is my only regret. I certainly appreciate the member putting this bill forward and getting it this far. I am sure that the bill will be approved. Let us all make a commitment in this House today, not only to support this bill but also to advocate for a nationwide breast cancer screening program to ensure that women in Nunavut have access to even the most basic screening.

We need to address the issue of standards for screening to ensure that where there are these unique challenges of detecting cancer in women, particularly women with dense breast tissue, that they are getting the very best they can get so that their risk is lowered and not increased.

Categorized:

Health Care

Libby urges the Conservative government to commit to the Mental Health Strategy for Canada

Wed, 09 May 2012 15:11:37 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 8, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, for years New Democrats and many others have been calling for a comprehensive strategy and action to improve mental health services for Canadians. Canada's mental health system is poorly coordinated and underfunded.

The Mental Health Commission today called for a long-overdue overhaul of this broken system. The federal government must stop neglecting mental health care and take leadership to ensure that Canadians receive the care they deserve.

What actions will the government take to implement the recommendations of this report, and when will we see these long-overdue changes?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the release of the mental health strategy this morning from the Mental Health Commission of Canada. As the opposition member knows, this important commission was created under our government. We are proud of the work that it has done so far. Our government will continue to work with the provinces and the territories in their efforts. We have committed to a long-term stable funding arrangement that will see health transfers reach record-high levels by the end of the decade.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my question was, what action will the federal government take on the recommendations that came out today?

The report outlines the need for collaboration and coordination among all levels of government.

Canadians need to see a significant federal investment in mental health.

Enough of the self-congratulations. Will the government implement these recommendations, or is it really just washing its hands and leaving it to the strained provincial budgets to pick up the slack?

Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, once elected, our government took quick action. In fact, we formed the Mental Health Commission during the first year of our mandate. The Liberal record is deplorable. All the Liberals did was to cut transfers to the jurisdictions. As for the NDP members, it is a bit rich that they ask such a question as they voted against the establishment of the Mental Health Commission. We will continue to work with the provinces and territories in the rollout of these recommendations.

Categorized:

Health Care

Libby speaks out against the Budget Implementation Act

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:54:30 +0000

House of Commons

HANSARD

May 3, 2012

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Western Arctic.

I want to begin my remarks today on Bill C-38 by saying, and it should be said, that this clearly is not only a budget implementation act.

I found it very interesting to listen to the parliamentary secretary's comments just a few moments ago when she chided the Liberal member for the record of the Liberal government, bringing in a massive omnibus bill as well. I remember that bill, C-43, but it is curious, because I seem to remember that the Conservatives in opposition at that time certainly had lots of concerns about what was hidden in that massive bill. I think it was about 1,000 pages. I remember the debates in this House about how the Liberals were trying to hide things and rush them through.

Here we are today in 2012 with another budget implementation bill, which is anything but. It has become a massive cover for putting through major public policy issues under the guise of a budget implementation bill.

I want to say, just for the record, that it is really bad public policy. It is a terrible way to make decisions. It is a direct attack on the ability of members of Parliament to examine legislation.

Much of the stuff that is in the budget implementation bill should be coming to the House as stand-alone legislation. When we go through the list, go through those 422 pages that comprise the current budget implementation act, we can just see how far-ranging the directions are in the bill.

For example, we know it is raising the age of eligibility of OAS and GIS from 65 to 67, something that the Prime Minister never campaigned on in the last election. For heaven's sake, it repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, meaning that the government is no longer required to report on its emissions under the act. That is in a budget bill? The Conservatives are putting that through in a budget bill? Is there something they want to hide from Canadians? I think so.

As we have heard many times in the House, it guts the environmental assessment regime and fish habitat protection. Again, this should be stand-alone legislation that the government should have the guts to bring forward on its merit and be willing to debate in this House, instead of trying to sneak it through in a budget implementation bill.

Just in terms of the changing environmental assessments, this would have a major impact on my province of British Columbia, on things like the Enbridge pipeline, where there has been incredible public interest in being involved in a democratic public process to comment on the environmental impact and assessment of that project.

What is the government doing? It uses the budget and the budget implementation act to actually shut down and to gag the public and say that not only is it putting short timelines on these major assessments but it will also delegate authority to other authorities, including the provinces, so it is basically narrowing the opportunities people have to comment on these important things.

To add insult to injury, not only does the bill gut environmental requirements; it also goes after civil society organizations by saying that the Canada Revenue Agency will tighten up what kind of political activities they can be engaged in. There is an attack on both sides, by legislation and by trying to fetter and gag the work that very important organizations do in our country to bring awareness to these major environmental projects that have a huge impact on all of us.

Here are a few other little gems in the budget. It would repeal the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. I am familiar with this, because as a city councillor in Vancouver over many terms, we actually used the federal fair wage act to set a benchmark for what we did municipally to pay fair wages to municipal contractors.

Now all of a sudden this act is gone. It has been there for decades. I do not know how far it goes back, but it has been a benchmark of what is considered to be fair wages.

Presumably this is now being completely eliminated because the Conservatives want to give more handouts to their corporate buddies and they want to undercut union wage rates. This is an attack on labour, just like we have seen with Bill C-377, where the government is attacking labour and trying to allege that they are not transparent organizations when we know they are. This is hidden in a budget implementation act.

It would also amend the Employment Equity Act so it would no longer apply to federal contractors. This is a major shift in public policy. I was part of the standing committee that reviewed the Employment Equity Act. It has to be reviewed every five years. The federal government is mandated to cover employment equity both in terms of its own direct services and of all the areas it covers like transport, airlines and banks. To amend the Employment Equity Act so it no longer applies to federal contractors is just a sheer gift and bonus to the Conservatives' buddies in saying that things like employment fairness, fair wages and ensuring diversity in the workplace would not count anymore and they would not have to worry about it. This is a major and dramatic shift in public policy.

I also want to mention a few local things that are very concerning to me, such as the cuts to the CAP program, which is purely mean-spirited. Low-income people who can currently gain access to the Internet through the community Internet access program would no longer have access to that. This is just a small thing, but it really does affect people. We live in an Internet age but there are lots of Canadians who still do not have their own computer or access to the Internet and they use the community access program to have that opportunity and capability. Why on earth would the Conservatives go after that? Why would they target people in that way?

As the health critic for the NDP, I want to speak briefly about some of the health aspects in the few minutes I have left.

We have said in this House many times how absolutely staggering a $31 billion decrease in health transfers to the provinces would be. This is a massive shift. The Conservatives unilaterally made a decision about health transfers in this country without any negotiation, debate or co-operation with the provinces and territories. It is something that is unheard of. This is a major assault on our health care system.

It goes even further than that. One of the little sneaky things that is in the budget is the amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health more power, supposedly on the basis of streamlining and improving the efficiency of various classifications of foods and drugs. However, it would basically give the minister more power to set up her own regulatory process and go outside the system. Again, this is something that should be coming forward in its own piece of legislation.

I will conclude by talking about what the budget does not address.

I live in Vancouver, and in Metro Vancouver probably the greatest issue we face is the lack of affordable housing. I have met with the Canadian Rental Housing Coalition in Metro Vancouver, which by the way, is made up of building owners, apartment owners, tenant groups and co-op housing groups. It is a broad coalition and they are all saying the same thing: the federal government must be part of a solution to build affordable housing in this country.

Where do we expect workers to live if they are paying 50% or 60% of their income in rent? The hotel workers and the people who work in the stadiums, on the waterfront or in the service industry can no longer afford to live anywhere close to where they work. This is a major issue in Metro Vancouver and also in other Canadian cities, yet there is not a single word in the budget implementation act that would make this a priority. It is just zero. It is as if it does not exist anymore.

We look at the contrast of the handouts to the Conservatives' friends in the corporate world while ignoring the real priorities of Canadians for basic human needs like housing, shelter, good pensions or even access to the Internet. All of these things have either been ignored or cut.

This is a terrible budget, a terrible bill. We should be offended as parliamentarians that this budget implementation bill is so broad. It has so much in it that we cannot even begin to debate, especially now that there is a gag order on the time we have for debate, which was passed earlier today. What an affront to parliamentary democracy.

We are here to stand up to say we oppose the bill and will use everything we can to oppose it all the way.

Categorized: