Libby Davies

[Canada Student Loans, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank members of the House who contributed to the debate on this motion. I would like to just briefly summarize why this motion was brought forward.

We heard from government members today that there are opportunities for students in Canada and that things are getting better. But I would just like to say that the purpose of this motion is to draw attention unfortunately to the stark reality that things in Canada for students are getting worse, not better.

Student debt has risen dramatically from $13,000 to $25,000. Unfortunately an increasing trend of privatization and control by the banks of the Canada student loans program means that more and more students are falling into debt and are unable to cope with increasing tuition fees primarily because of what we have seen as the retreat of public funding by the federal government.

We know that something like $1.5 billion has been lost from post-secondary education. The reality is that across Canada there are so many different standards in terms of different provinces. I would agree with my colleague from the Bloc that the situation in Quebec has been much better. The situation in B.C. is that we have had a tuition freeze for three years in a row. But elsewhere in Canada the situation is very, very grave for students because of the retreat of public funding.

I would encourage members of the House to defend public education and to say to the government that we do need a national grants program. We do need accessibility as a national standard. It is something that we need to work out with the provinces so we do not have this patchwork across the country and where more and more students are graduating into poverty and more and more students cannot afford to go to post-secondary education.

I urge the members of the House to support this motion in the spirit of standing behind our educational system and defending the rights of students in Canada.

[Canada Student Loans, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion I would like to seek the consent of the House to briefly sum up for just two minutes.

[The Homeless, November 5th, 1998]

Yes, I will.

[The Homeless, November 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Homelessness has reached crisis proportions across Canada. In response, apparently a cabinet committee will study the issue. I will save it the time.

Two hundred thousand Canadians are homeless. The lucky ones find temporary beds in shelters. Thousands of others sleep on park benches and huddle in doorways for warmth. We know what keeps them there. No federal funding and no support for social housing.

Will the Prime Minister scrap the hypocritical doublespeak and commit real dollars to the homelessness emergency in Canada?

[Poverty, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Centre for Social Justice has proven that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. The Centre for the Study of Living Standards has proven that economic well-being is in decline. A study by HRDC has proven that urban poverty is increasing. They all point to a critical need for government action.

Instead we hear that the government plans to address poverty by redefining the way it is measured.

My question is simply this: Is this government planning to eradicate poverty by scrapping the LICO and redefining poor people out of existence?

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in reply to the first part of the member's comments and question in terms of my visit to Indonesia and Thailand, I raised that because it is important for us to understand what it was that the students and a very diverse part of the community in Vancouver and across Canada were protesting and voicing their concern about in terms of the APEC gathering.

Having just come back from those countries I can tell the hon. member it is simply untrue that there are millions of people who were lifted out of poverty as a result of trade liberalization. Quite the contrary is true. Those economies are now in complete shatters. There are people who are facing unemployment, hunger and devastation.

I believe these issues are related. We have to understand that there was huge concern in Canada about Canada's role in promoting this kind of unfettered market force and movement of capital that are basically put ahead of what are urgent and human needs.

On the point about there being some people who did something wrong and that maybe some of the students were protesting in a way that was acceptable but others were not and broke the law, I am not aware of instances where there were any protesters who broke the law or in any way threatened the security of the visiting leaders.

One of the disgusting things about the APEC summit is that the word security was used as a cover to basically deny people the right to protest in a democratic and open society. Whether it is the socialist workers party or students at UBC or anti-poverty activists in my own riding of Vancouver East, people were exercising their democratic rights.

Frankly I am surprised to hear the member from the Reform Party raise that as though somehow those actions were not in order. They in no way threatened the security of the leaders or the summit itself. To state that is simply false.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to join with my colleagues from the NDP in speaking to our opposition day motion that really is a very important question. It has taken up an enormous amount of time in the House over the past few weeks.

The reason for bringing forward this motion today is to simply, as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and other members of our caucus have outlined, put the question fair and square to the members of the House that the student complainants at the public complaints inquiry commission have a right to receive independent legal representation. The question before the House today is that straightforward and that simple.

I was in my riding of Vancouver East last week. It was not surprising to me that wherever I went and whatever discussions I had on many topics, the issue of the complaints inquiry came up. Everywhere I went, whether it was talking to seniors, students, unemployed people or community members, this issue came up. To hear government members today dismiss this motion and this issue as something that is politically expedient in terms of the opposition raising this issue tells me that government members have already closed their ears. They have stopped listening to what the people of Canada have to say.

After several weeks of questioning in the House, last Friday all of Canada was waiting to hear whether the solicitor general would finally agree that the students must have legal representation and the funding for that to happen. When the announcement was made and we heard the solicitor general's weak and very limp response, it was a shock. Many of us expected that this was an opportunity for the government to set the record straight and to begin to do the right thing. It was a huge disappointment after two requests from the commission the solicitor general told the House that we have to have faith in that he refused the two requests from the commission for independent funding.

It raises the question of the conflict of interest that the solicitor general is now in. On October 9 I along with my colleague raised in the House the question that the solicitor general had to acknowledge the conflict which he had placed himself in and the jeopardy that he had created for the process he had defended in the House. The conflict of interest and the fact that the very students he is denying funding to are the students who want to call him as a witness is a very serious conflict that has yet to be addressed.

It is important to go back and look at what has caused us to be at this incredible juncture today which is one of the most important questions we have considered in this parliament. We have to remember that the reason students were protesting democratically, the reason they were protesting peacefully and the reason they were exercising their democratic rights was their concern around the APEC summit in Vancouver last November.

I along with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas and other members and activists attended the peoples summit to express our very deep concern about the role the Canadian government was playing in hosting foreign leaders who not only deny and violate human rights in their countries but who were coming together to promote a system of a capital intensive marketplace that supersedes all human needs and human rights. That is why those students were protesting. That is why those students were holding up their little signs on the way to UBC. They were really putting their point on the record. The travesty that has unfolded since that time has dug us deeper and deeper into a situation where now we seriously question the honour and the credibility of this government in what it really stands for.

How many times have we heard the Prime Minister get up and say he is here defending the rights of young people or Canada has a good track record on human rights? Here is the proof, here and now today in terms of this public complaints commission inquiry. This is where Canadians make the determination as to whether we stand for democracy, whether we stand in defence of those students or whether we are about to abandon those rights. The government has made it clear where it stands.

Last September I was very fortunate to be a part of a delegation hosted by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. It visited two of the countries that are living the consequences of what APEC and trade liberalization are all about. I visited Indonesia and Thailand and saw for myself, along with other members of parliament and members of the NGO and international community, the devastation of what the so-called economic miracle in trade liberalization has been in those two countries.

It was very ironic after meeting students in Indonesia who have led the struggle there for democracy and economic and social reform at great personal risk as many of them have been jailed to come back to Canada and learn that the public complaints commission inquiry was beginning and that security here had been used as a cover to suppress the political and democratic expression against students who were exposing the same situation in Indonesia.

Very often we think that what we hold dear in this country is something that maybe we take for granted. I think we learned that day in November that we can see a government that becomes incredibly arrogant through the decision of a Prime Minister and that interference at a political level can violate those democratic rights and basically trample on young people who are trying to defend their rights here and to speak out against dictators like Mr. Suharto and other thugs who have suppressed their own people's rights. I think it was a very sad irony that that sort of situation exists.

As this story unfolds and as the government digs itself deeper and deeper into a situation that it seems unable to recover from, one of the most disappointing things has been to see the role that the Prime Minister has taken on. We had the first joke last November, a totally inappropriate comment. The Prime Minister did not learn from that. He went on to a second and a third joke. Even in the House we have now heard comments about baseball bats and water cannons. It really is a very serious matter and it is something that Canadians do not want to hear jokes about.

The Prime Minister continues to trivialize and make light of the very serious protest that these students undertook and their seriousness in trying to bring this complaint. They have had a complete lack of support from the government. That the government is doing its very best and spending a ton of money to undermine the process is something that really is very dishonourable in the House. It brings a great deal of shame on us.

I remember listening to Mr. Nelson Mandela in the House in September. It was a day when we remembered the honour that Canada had brought in the struggle to end apartheid. Yet very sadly it was also a day when we were in the midst of this crisis of a government that was unable to see what the right thing was in supporting these students and making sure we have a proper inquiry that is not undermined but will seriously get at the truth.

This motion today is very simple and straightforward. We would like to ask who on the government side will stand up and defend democracy and affirm that we are here in the House to represent the people of Canada and to defend democracy. It is not to protect a government when it has botched a job and it is not to defend a Prime Minister who is absolutely wrong and callous in his regard for people's human and legal rights.

The question is straightforward. Will the House agree and will Liberal members to have the courage to stand up and say that it is not too late to change a grievous wrong to those students and the people of Canada and to make sure that inquiry, limited as it is, will at least enable those students to get a fair shot at getting their case heard and having their complaints fairly heard? We have called for a full judicial inquiry. We ask the government members to have the courage to support this motion.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion that is before us.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for bringing forward this motion because it provides us with an opportunity to talk about a very important issue, that is, the role of caregivers who are primarily women in the home in our society. It is a very important issue that I think must be debated in the House.

We in the NDP believe that it is very important that the role of caregivers, primarily women working in the home, is recognized. Women working in the home are often portrayed negatively in a society that seems to place value only on economic pursuits. In fact, child rearing is the most important task that we face as individuals and as a society.

From that standpoint this motion is grounded on some important principles that we should be debating. One of those principles is that our children are our most valuable resource and those who care for children on a full time basis must be recognized as providing an important service to society. They are nurturing those who will shape the future of our society.

However, having said that I must point out that we have some concerns about this motion because it is put forward in a very simplistic way and does not give any context to the condition that we now find ourselves in of growing poverty, growing unemployment and fewer and fewer options for caregivers and parents who remain in the home.

For example, what safeguard is there that the salary that the motion refers to will be adequate to ensure that caregivers, who are mostly women, will have the options that women have been struggling for over the course of the last 100 years? I think the danger here is that the salary the motion refers to will be so far below the poverty line that it will serve the opposite purpose than that which is intended. Instead of adding to the value of the work that women do in the home, it could actually undervalue the important contribution that caregivers make. Instead of opening doors for women it could limit the options.

We only have to look at other issues of public policy and at how we treat caregivers in the home to see how we undervalue that work. This is where the danger lies in the motion. We only have to look at welfare policies. In most provinces welfare payments are way below the poverty line. Many people who are on welfare are women. They are raising children. They are struggling to pay rent and to meet the daily needs of food. We only have to look at the situation with the EI cutbacks which are forcing more and more women into a range of more and more limited options, if they can even claim EI.

We note from the changes in the regulations that less than 40% of workers who pay into UI, many of whom are women, are now no longer eligible. It is forcing those women back into poverty and back into a situation where they cannot meet the basic needs of raising their families. Those are the kinds of public policy decisions we have had that have really pointed the finger at the Liberal government as to what it really thinks about the role of women and caregivers at home.

We only have to look at pay equity and the disastrous course this government has embarked on in terms of denying federal civil servants what has rightfully been theirs for so many years. That struggle has gone on for more than 14 years. The member needs to go back to his own caucus and his own government to establish accountability and to point out the contradictions and the hypocrisy this government has put to Canadians in terms of policies that have actually penalized women and caregivers.

A program of affordable quality child care would truly provide women with meaningful options. At the same time it would ensure all children were given the necessary early education and care despite a woman's income. There is no question that families in Canada are under incredible pressure. Prolonged high unemployment, a labour market in which wages are stagnant and jobs are hard to come by, and massive cuts to social programs and public services have made it more and more difficult for families to meet their own needs and the needs of their children. The fact is that affordable, accessible, high quality early childhood education and child care are critical components of an integrated strategy to meet the needs of families. Unfortunately this motion does not address that.

Child care performs many important functions in our society, functions that improve the quality of life for children and families, both for those who are poor and for those who are not. High quality child care and early childhood education ensure children are given important foundations necessary for healthy growth and development throughout the rest of their lives. Access to child care is a key source of equality for women because it allows women access to jobs, therefore improving their chances for greater economic equality. As such we should look at child care as an anti-poverty measure for Canada's children.

The sad reality is the Liberals and the Tories before them have not taken this issue seriously. The Liberals delivered the biggest blow to Canadian children by eliminating the Canada assistance plan which was the only source of federal funding for regulated child care in Canada. Under the Canada health and social transfer there is now no provision for federal-provincial sharing of subsidized child care. Therefore there is no incentive for provinces to provide more child care spaces. By eliminating the Canada assistance plan, the Liberals effectively cut $350 million from federal spending on child care. This hurts poor women and children the hardest.

Canadians do care about child care. A national survey commissioned by the child care sector studies steering committee and conducted by Environics in May found that 89% of Canadians agree that high quality child care is an important factor in helping to ensure Canada's future social and economic well-being. Eighty-one per cent of those surveyed think the government should develop a plan to improve child care, and seventy-eight per cent would like to see government spend more money than it does now to ensure high quality care exists at fees families can afford. That is a very important matter in terms of accessibility. Despite promises to the contrary, this government has done nothing.

In the throne speech of the member's own party, the Liberals had the gall to say “one of our objectives as a country should be to ensure that all Canadian children have the best possible opportunity to develop their full potential”. The truth is that while 1.4 million children participate in some form of paid child care, the organizations operate without the support of clear public policy and with little or no public funding. The shocking reality is that on average child care workers are paid less than zoo keepers. In 1996 the net average annual income of caregivers in regulated family child care was $8,400.

That is the kind of value the Liberal government has placed on caregivers. I think it raises very serious concerns about where this motion is coming from, that it is not connected to the reality of what has happened in Canada which has undermined the ability of families to provide care at home or to give options to women to improve their equality and to ensure there is early childhood education for children.

In 1993 the Liberals abandoned their 1993 election promise to create 150,000 new child care spaces. The 1997 platform does not even mention child care, so we have a travesty on our hands.

While we support the idea of remuneration for the important work mothers and some fathers do in the home, the real issue and the ideal is to have this become one component of a much broader comprehensive initiative centred around early childhood care and education, the equality of women and ensuring there are real options in the home as well as in the workforce to make sure we do not see a situation of growing poverty among children and families. It is to make sure we do not see a situation where women are denied EI benefits, where women are denied pay equity and where women are struggling, living below the poverty line caring for their children.

I urge the member to go back to his government and to point out the stark realities and the contradictions and the victimization that has happened to women and children of this country because of policies from the government.

[Apec Summit, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the public complaints commission is now completely compromised by the actions of the solicitor general and there is still no funding for legal representation for student complainants.

Surely the solicitor general must acknowledge the conflict of interest he has put himself in and the jeopardy he has created for the process he defended.

Funding must be provided and the solicitor general must do the right thing. Will he resign?

[International Day For The Elimination Of Poverty, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, October 17 is the International Day for the Elimination of Poverty.

Sadly, I do not rise today to mark our progress toward achieving that goal; I rise to lament government inaction and the increasing poverty that stems from it.

In Canada more than five million Canadians live below the poverty line. And, shamefully, this does not include aboriginal peoples on reserves where social assistance does not even cover the basic costs for food.

As we mark this day, homelessness is reaching epidemic proportions.

In my riding of Vancouver East too many people are dealing with the daily dilemmas of heart-wrenching poverty: where to sleep; what to eat; how to face the hopelessness in their children's eyes.

There are immediate steps that this government can take: amend the Human Rights Act to include poverty as a prohibited grounds for discrimination; declare a national emergency on homelessness; stop the federal retreat from social housing; begin to replenish the billions cut from social spending.

Let us make this October 17 the beginning of real action to eliminate poverty.