Louise Hardy

[Human Rights, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 26, 1998 Guatemalan Bishop Juan Gerardi was murdered. His crime was to release a report on human rights abuse under a former military regime.

Guatemala participated in the summit of the Americas where the Prime Minister of Canada indicated that leaders of 34 democratically elected governments in the hemisphere committed themselves to respect human rights everywhere in the Americas.

But unfettered globalization is bringing the clashes between trade and human rights to the centre of international activities. Sadly our country is taking the position that trade is ahead of democratic development and human rights.

We wish to alert this government that its foreign policy of constructive engagement is not fostering human rights with our trading partners but is bringing the social values of repressive regimes into our own country as expressed by the autocratic attitude of the Prime Minister and evidenced by the attack on University of British Columbia students during APEC.

The citizens of this country are demanding that our deeper obligations are to promote and defend international human rights, not to support the abusers.

[Criminal Code, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to follow up on my question about the multilateral agreement on investment, providing a broad based public consultation, and having the government do that so the people of Canada can participate.

Before taking that step, the government should analyse the implication and the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on our democracy in light of being locked in to it for 20 years, the impact on employment and environmental standards and the subjugation of lower levels of government in relation to the conditions of the multilateral agreement on investment.

We were concerned about the potential implications of national treatment for foreign companies and want the government to table the analysis particularly when it comes to first nations governments and their ability to look after their people or territorial or provincial governments.

By consulting the people, the government will show it is concerned about trade in the country and who will benefit the most, which should be the people and not just the owners of large amounts of capital.

The Canadian economy has always been global. That has never been a question. However it is how we organize that global interaction and who it is to benefit, the people of the country. It has always been the objective to have good levels of wages and to sustain our health care and education system and not to remove the people's choice for democracy.

In the case of the multilateral agreement, the federal government should not sign the agreement or any other agreement unless there is a binding agreement protecting the abilities of provinces, territories and the national government to protect their interest over the long term and not be subjected to the short term interest of foreign investment.

We ask the government to let us know what kind of consultation it is willing to undertake and what time schedule it is looking at. Considering the agreement has made a pit-stop as it is called in negotiations, this is the perfect time to do an impact analysis and consult the people of the country on what direction they want their government to take when it comes to international trade.

[Petitions, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Canadian residents who are deeply concerned and believe that the provocation defence as it is currently used in femicide and wife slaughter cases inappropriately and unjustly changes the focus of the criminal trial from the behaviour of the accused and his intention to murder to the behaviour of the victim who from then on is identified as the one responsible for the accused violence.

Therefore the undersigned request that parliament review and change the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code.

[Housing Co-Operatives, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when we think about housing, most of us spend our entire lives or at least 20 to 25 years paying for one house. Housing is a human right. We deserve to have shelter to protect us from the elements. We bring up our families in our houses. Yet housing is becoming further from most of us as poverty grows in this country. As the gap between those who have and have not grows, more and more people will be without housing.

The co-operative housing movement has provided places for those who would not otherwise have a chance to put a roof over their heads, for those who would not otherwise have a chance for home ownership. Over the last 25 years that movement has provided an avenue for housing.

For more than 25 years the co-operative housing movement and the Government of Canada were partners in building a Canadian co-operative housing sector. The unilateral decision by the federal government to terminate this partnership will affect more than 60,000 co-op units and far more individuals who live in those houses.

No other housing program has created the strong sense of community so characteristic of co-operative housing. Rather than terminate such a valuable partnership, the federal government needs to develop new and stronger partnerships between Canadians and their housing co-operatives. This is one of the few supports available for urban natives. There are very strong urban native housing co-operatives across this country. They are completely dependent on it. This change will destabilize that sense of ownership, belonging and long term stability that co-operative housing has brought to senior single mothers and urban natives across this country.

The federal plan to devolve housing is threatening the future of the co-operative housing movement. Co-operative housing contributes to the alleviation of poverty and it increases living standards and develops a sense of community. The transfer of the housing co-operatives to provincial and territorial governments is threatening the stable, well maintained co-op community Canadians have built over the years and the investment the people of this country have made in this unique type of good affordable housing.

It is social housing self-managed by its members who are diverse in income, culture and education. It is a tool of national unity due to the fact that co-operative housing represents communities within communities across Canada that share the same philosophy, operating agreements and structures.

The federal government needs to recognize the uniqueness of housing co-operatives and their national position in Canada's social housing program and transfer that segment of the portfolio to the co-operative housing federation to look after it under the same contract it has had for the past 25 years to 30 years. The federal government must work with the national co-operative housing sector to find an arrangement that will preserve the successful features of co-operative housing.

This housing makes up 10% of Canada's federally assisted housing stock. The non-profit agency being proposed by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada will specialize in managing the co-operative housing portfolio. Carving out that portfolio among 12 different jurisdictions will leave the co-op housing sector divided and without countrywide links to benefit all co-ops.

They are owned by their residents who volunteer time to their communities. Their operating costs are 19% below costs of municipal and private non-profit housing and 71% below costs of housing owned by the federal and provincial governments. In 1992 the value of donated time ran between $900 and $1,400 per household per year. Co-ops are accountable to their members, their residents. This means built-in incentives to manage well and keep costs low.

The federal government took steps to undermine the continued viability of Canada's housing co-operative movement. The policy being implemented by the Liberal government violates its 1993 electoral promises. In 1993 the Minister of Finance wrote a letter to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the co-operative housing federation, the National Housing Coalition, supporters of non-profit co-operative housing and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. He stated: “Our platform document provides a framework for government in the 1990s. While it does not specifically address our commitment to non-profit and co-operative housing, let me make it abundantly clear that the Liberal government is committed to stable and secure funding for the non-profit and co-operative housing sectors”. This has turned out to be untrue.

It is clear that the Liberal promise on social housing was like the promise to eliminate the GST and abandoning people in one million Canadian households living in need of adequate shelter. It is similar to the abandonment of those with hepatitis C, the east and west coast fishermen, our medicare system, young students struggling for an education, the EI program and those who are unemployed.

Canadians need housing. The co-operative movement is ready to take on that aspect and provide housing for those in need and we should support that.

[Reforestation, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Treasury Board. In 1995 the Elijah Smith Reforestation Fund was set up, but unfortunately there was a mix-up and no money is coming back to the Yukon for reforestation, which is particularly needed this year.

Will the minister fix the problem and make sure reforestation money comes back to the Yukon for work this year?

[Petitions, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from citizens from across Canada who are opposed to the multilateral agreement on investment as it is fundamentally flawed in that it seeks to protect the rights of investors without seeking similar protection for citizens' rights and workers' rights through labour standards or for our environment.

Therefore, the petitioners want this Parliament to reject the MAI.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the reason we need this amendment is we cannot trust the Liberals to look after our health care system.

We used to have a Canada assistance plan that reflected the needs of the regions. It would match health care. It would match education. It would match social assistance. That is no longer in place. We have a Canada health transfer that is a chunk of money which the provinces can do with whatever they like. A sympathetic provincial government will make sure there is health care.

Systematically Liberal decisions and policies have undermined health care and now we are in a position where we are forced to debate whether or not we will have health care in our country. At their convention the Liberals passed a resolution that Canada would ensure a national standard of health care for all Canadians.

We are chipping away at the foundation instead of putting in the windows and doors of our health care system. We are not providing pharmacare. We are not providing home care. Health care in rural and remote areas is not a given. There may be a health station in these areas which is what is in Old Crow. It is an incredibly expensive flight to get out. You may see a doctor once a month or you may not. We have a situation where the Canadian Medical Association says that for Canadians the CHST has meant and continues to mean less federal government commitment to our health care system and has compromised the federal government's ability to preserve and enhance national standards.

It went on to say that the accumulated reductions now total $18.9 billion, that the government is giving back 1.5% of the total reductions in cash payments to the provinces, and that this is supposed to fix the mess that has been made. Another comment was that the CHST cash payments need to factor in other things than just the economy, such as the age of the population.

Our elderly parents and elders in our communities are not going to go away. We know that elderly people need more health care. Sick children are not going to go away. Mothers and fathers are still going to have to stay home to look after those children. When they do that, it is a cost to our economy and to our society.

We need a mechanism that will hold the Liberal government to account so that it does not continue cutting and sneaking its cuts in through the back door. Canadians everywhere want a health care system they can count on. If the government cannot go at it by direct cuts—and it was forced to stop cutting and not putting anything back—it is going to go at it another way around.

The recommendation of the Canadian Medical Association is to increase the amount. The government should take in a combination of factors such as technology, economic growth, population growth and demographics. The government should establish national targets, what our health care will be, where we will go with it and what we will do with it.

Obviously we cannot give the government a free hand because we know what it does with it. It tears our medical system apart. We want a mechanism to hold it accountable, whatever government is in place, to a standard of medical care that we can all be proud of. Then we can rest at night knowing that no one will die in a corridor or on the street because we did not care enough to make sure the money was there to look after them.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that I would agree with you. I do not want aspirations cast on any member of this House. There is the appearance of a conflict of interest in this bill and the purpose of the amendment is to delete clause 241 so that there will not be an appearance of conflict of interest. It is a difficult issue to discuss. If you have to go close to the edge, you have to.

It has to be talked about because every member of Parliament then gets painted with the same brush whether it is good or for ill. I will say no more. However, we do support the Bloc amendment.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

If there are measures such as the tax measure outlined in clause 241 of Bill C-28 which put the Minister of Finance in the light of giving the appearance of going beyond our bounds of ethics, they should be withdrawn. Again it reflects on every member of Parliament. The minister should not have tabled the bill—

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding. I did not mean to cast any aspersions on anyone in this House. But actions that anyone takes here, whether they are good or bad, reflect on every member of Parliament.