Libby Davies

[Points of Order, February 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made a very offensive and insulting personal attack on the member for Timmins—James Bay, who was very straightforwardly asking a question based on access to information and factual information that is now in the public realm.

I would ask the minister to withdraw his very offensive and insulting remarks to our member, who was simply carrying out his duty on behalf of his constituents and raising a legitimate question in the House. To be insulted in that manner by a minister is something we should not allow to happen. It should not be tolerated, and I would ask the minister to apologize to the member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the serious problems in the budget. When we examine it in detail, we can see there are many measures and proposals that not only will not contribute anything in terms of stimulating the economy but will actually hurt people.

One of the really serious things is rolling back the collective agreements. British Columbia had that experience with bill 29 when Gordon Campbell ripped up the whole principle of collective agreements and negotiating. That was fought all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Luckily and thankfully, the bill was overturned by the Supreme Court. Lo and behold, the Conservative government is doing exactly the same thing.

The member is entirely correct. Those measures in the budget have nothing to do with economic stimulus. They attack people's basic rights, whether they are women or workers. This is something people feel very demoralized about because we expect a budget that actually addresses budgetary priorities that will help people, not measures and broad proposals that are actually going to hurt people.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some historical blinkers on or is trying to self-censor himself in terms of what happened. It seems to me he should be asking this question of the Conservative government that he is now apparently very close to in terms of what actually took place in the House. He will remember it was the government that suspended the business of the House. It prorogued the House and shut down all of the business that we in the NDP were prepared to do.

The member was one of the members on this side of the House who signed the letter which made it clear there was an alternative, and we did not have to have an election. This idea that somehow the choice is to either go along with a terrible budget or move into an election, of course, is a completely false premise, and the member knows that. However, I guess it is easy to spin things in a certain way now that the Liberals have made their choice to support the Conservative budget.

All I can say is that we in the NDP came to a very important conclusion that given everything that has happened, we do not have confidence in the Prime Minister nor the Conservative government in terms of the decisions they have made, the direction they are taking this country, and how they have so badly let people down. We made our decision based on principle and merit, and we feel very comfortable with it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the NDP today in speaking against Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill.

I, like many members of Parliament, held consultations in my local community of East Vancouver to talk to people about what they wanted to see in the budget. People really focused on the essential bread and butter issues of what they need to see happen in order to get through their daily lives, to make it to the end of the month, to put food on the table, to make sure that they have enough money for housing and for their kids to go to school, and to be able to afford a decent quality of life. That is what people were most worried about, particularly in the middle of an economic crisis where so many people were losing their jobs.

In examining the budget in detail, we have come to the conclusion that it fails on two fundamental levels. First, it does not address those essential issues that people are facing in their communities, and second, and what is particularly offensive and outrageous, is that the budget is being used as a cover to move in all kinds of outrageous proposals and rollbacks that would impact working people right across the country.

The Conservative government is not the first government to do that. I remember a Liberal budget that was billed as an education budget. The Liberals moved in proposals that would dramatically impact students in terms of bankruptcy laws. Those proposals were buried in the back pages.

Just a couple of budgets ago the Conservative government used the cover of a budget to bring in massive changes to the citizenship and immigration system. We have not forgotten that either.

Today, the government is using the budget to bring in a wage restraint and a wage freeze program, and to rollback collective agreements. The budget is being used to leverage an attack on women's equality in this country and to turn back the clock on decades of struggle for pay equity. It is doing this by removing the choice that women have to negotiate for pay equity and the use of the human rights system and the court system to ensure that their grievances and legitimate claims for pay equity are heard.

Why on earth would that be in the budget? The answer is because the government is focused on an ideological agenda that is about dismantling the rights that people have fought for and won over many decades. On those two fundamental levels, the budget is a failure.

When I talked to the people at the budget consultations in my riding, the issue that came forward most forcibly was the issue of the crisis in affordable housing.

In B.C. there are up to 15,000 homeless people. In metro Vancouver the 2008 homeless count was 2,600 people in a 24 hour period. The overall homelessness rate in Vancouver has risen 32% since 2005 and street level homelessness has increased by 364% in greater Vancouver since 2002. That is from the metro homeless count.

What is even more disturbing is that aboriginal people make up over 30% of the homeless population in Vancouver even though they make up only 2% of the overall Canadian population.

What makes this housing crisis in my community even worse is that it is facing a vacancy rate that is in effect zero. Tenants are being evicted. They cannot find any kind of affordable place to stay. Renovations are going on and people are being booted out on the street. The crisis in the city of Vancouver is really hitting people hard.

We had seriously hoped that the budget would provide a real stimulus to housing construction not only in Vancouver but right across the country. Instead of a long-term strategy to build affordable housing in this country, we see a one shot deal that will not even address the broad spectrum of housing needs.

Although there is money earmarked for people with disabilities or seniors, there is nothing, for example, for aboriginal people who live off reserve. There is nothing to develop or actually guarantee that new social housing units will be built or that cooperative housing, which has been a huge success story across Canada, will be either refurbished or new units developed. It is no wonder that people like Mayor Gregor Robertson was quoted in the press as saying:

It looks like we'll need to be creative and more aggressive at trying to ensure these dollars create housing for those in greatest need in Vancouver.

He went on to say:

It's confounding, because our homelessness crisis, and specifically the aboriginal homelessness issue, is well-known across the country. I don't know why they would limit our ability to apply these dollars where they're most needed.

That is the mayor of Vancouver who is grappling with a serious housing crisis in our city. He is doing his part and even the provincial government has begun to make some movement to address this issue, but what has the federal government done? What is there really in the budget that will ensure that money flows to the municipalities?

Yesterday the Federation of Canadian Municipalities held a briefing and pointed out that it has serious issues with the way the infrastructure money will be flowing. It wants to see a per capita formula, so we can ensure that the money gets directly into those projects and into those municipalities.

At this point there is no knowledge and no understanding, so we are faced with the very real possibility that just like the billions of dollars that were earmarked in the previous budget for infrastructure, that these dollars will never be spent because they have to be matched by other levels and because the process for having the money actually implemented is so onerous that it may actually never be spent.

Maybe that is what the Conservatives had planned all along, that they would book the money there but would actually frustrate the system so much that it would never get to the people who really need it.

I also want to add that people in British Columbia are suffering under double injury. Not only are they facing the consequences of the recession, the loss of jobs and not being able to get EI or adequate housing, they are also facing cuts from the B.C. government. We have just experienced a whole slew of cuts in our legal aid system. It is very serious when we have a study from the Legal Services Society of B.C. that found that more than 80% of low income British Columbians are dealing with legal issues that are serious and difficult to resolve, yet both the quality and quantity of legal services available to low income people continues to erode.

When people are facing the lack of support and services on the provincial side and then they see on the federal side that they are getting hit again, it makes people feel pretty bad. It makes people feel that they do not have a hope about what will happen in the future. These are just some of the examples of what people are actually experiencing.

When I did my budget consultation, one of the issues that came through very strongly was the fact that Canada is at the bottom of the OECD ranking for child care provision. There had been hope that the budget finally would include a commitment to a national child care program.

The NDP worked very hard in the last Parliament to get through a bill by a majority of members of Parliament to set up a universal, accessible, affordable, not-for-profit child care system. The government had the opportunity to build on that strength and on that vote and to finally include something in the budget that would recognize this importance, not just focusing exclusively on the number of child care spaces but also on the affordability of child care and ensuring that there were adequate wages for child care workers and stable, long-term funding for our child care centres. None of those things were in the budget.

I want to end by just making a point about EI. Surely, this was the greatest travesty in the budget. What a horror story that workers who have been laid off or thrown out of work, who have paid into their EI diligently over so many years, only to find that they are no longer eligible. We have 65% of women who are no longer eligible for EI. We find this the most reprehensible thing that is contained in the budget. It is appalling that in a recession, when people most need help because they have been thrown out of work, they do not even qualify for the program to which they themselves have contributed.

For all of these reasons, we in the NDP find this budget to be a failure. We have fought it as hard as we can. It is very disturbing that the official opposition members have fallen right off the job and have capitulated to this budget. That is what they will have to live with. We know what we have done in terms of opposing the direction this budget has taken because it does not serve the people of Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member for Halifax made a very fine speech. She laid out very eloquently what is not in the budget, what is missing and why it is so disastrous.

The member for Halifax has the honour of having more post-secondary educational facilities in her riding than any other place in Canada. One of the nasty little poison pills that is in the budget is it brings in some new measures and rules that will be very punitive to students who access the Canada student loans program. I am sure as a new MP she is just beginning to learn what it is like when her office is flooded with students who are battling this archaic system of Canada student loans, the penalties they face and the problems they have with a system that is very inaccessible and creates huge amounts of student debt.

It is incredibly outrageous that in the budget which is supposedly there to help people, we see punitive measures that will impact students. Rather than helping students get ahead, making the system work better and making sure that loans are accessible and affordable, we are seeing more penalties being brought in.

I wonder if the member would comment on that, because I am sure it will have a big impact in her riding of Halifax.

[Bills of Exchange Act, February 10th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (rights of bill holders).

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would protect consumers from lawsuits when cheque cashing businesses cash cancelled cheques. Under the current laws, which date back to the 1890s, businesses, such as Money Mart, can successfully sue the issuer of a cheque cashed by a third party even when a stop payment order has been issued.

I have had numerous examples brought to my attention of consumers who have been ripped off by an unsavoury business even when they tried to put a stop payment on a cheque or when problems developed. I am hoping the bill will have broad support from MPs because this is happening in every community because of a very archaic law.

The bill before us would put the onus on businesses to ensure that the cheques they cash have not had a stop payment put on them. It is a consumer protection bill that would save people much grief from dealing with financial organizations that operate in a way that rips off consumers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act, February 10th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for seconding the bill.

The bill would ensure adequate, accessible and affordable housing. There is no question that there is a housing crisis in this country. We know that at least three million Canadian households live in housing insecurity and that homelessness is a terrible crisis in many communities.

It is important that the federal government accept its responsibility for housing and work with the provinces, local communities and aboriginal representatives to ensure we deal with the housing problem.

The bill puts forward a strong plan to ensure that secure, adequate, affordable and accessible housing is there, that coop housing is developed, that housing for aboriginal people is developed and that housing is developed for people who are homeless. The bill calls on the federal government to work in a cooperative way with other partners to develop such a strategy and a program. We believe this is critical.

I hope all members of the House will consider the bill and support it because we need to ensure that we do not have a homelessness crisis and a housing crisis in a country as wealthy as Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT, February 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the member for Halifax has a long history of working with non-profit organizations in her own community so I look forward to hearing her comments in the House later.

The particular organization that she gave as an example is doing yeoman service, trying to work in a grassroots way to bring people along, to educate them, and to provide real alternatives to them. The Auditor General's report from the Environment Commissioner slammed the government for its complete lack of progress on climate change and pointed out that there is no transparency or accountability and very negligible improvements. The local organization in Halifax is really doing the job, but yet it is struggling for funds.

The member has really pinpointed the problem with the bill. We are dealing with a sort of regulatory regime about governance when most of these organizations are doing just fine. We are completely missing the need that they have which is to have some financial security so they can continue their work. Members in the NDP will continue to raise this because it is an important priority. We understand the importance of the work of these organizations.

[CANADA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT, February 6th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is very nice to see you in the Chair. I know the people of Victoria are very proud of you being our Assistant Deputy Speaker.

Before question period I was talking about this massive bill of about 170 pages, Bill C-4, that deals with the regulation of not-for-profit corporations. In my comments I was talking about advocacy.

One of the problems we have with the bill is that it does not address the core issues and the critical issues that are facing non-profit organizations in this country. One of those issues is the need to deal with advocacy. I find it very interesting that somehow this has become almost a taboo thing because of restrictions from Revenue Canada because of the charitable status.

I do not know why it is that the notion of advocacy has taken on this very partisan, politicized meaning from the government's point of view. I am someone who has worked in the non-profit sector for many years before I was elected as a city councillor and then as an MP, so I am very familiar with the non-profit sector and how important it is in community development and building healthy communities. Advocacy is very much a part of that.

Even when organizations have charitable status, they should be able to do advocacy. There is nothing wrong with advocating for the people we represent and for whom we are working. This is particularly true in my riding of Vancouver East where we have many people who are very vulnerable and at risk, whether they are homeless, living far below the poverty line or drug users who have been very marginalized by our health care system and by criminal enforcement. Many organizations do incredible work right on the front line in helping people, not only with their daily needs of surviving and going up against the system, but also in advocating for people's rights.

To me, this is a very important function and a very important responsibility that is part of our civil society. It is part of our non-profit structure and part of the history that we have in the way not-for-profits work in this country.

Some not-for-profits simply deliver service and programs, which is exemplary and, of course, needs to be done. However, as I said in my earlier remarks, they and all groups lack stable, long-term and core funding. It is so hard for so many organizations now to survive. People are relying on whatever private donations they can get.

It is interesting to note that in the United States there is a much bigger system of private foundations that do provide huge support to charitable and not-for-profit organizations. In Canada, we have had more of a history of different levels of government recognizing the importance and value of non-profit organizations and actually providing public funding to them. That is a very legitimate thing and it is a very wise use of taxpayer dollars.

However, since the 1990s, every group we talk to, and I could talk to any number of groups in my community, whether it is women's organizations, housing organizations or people involved in legal services, they have all faced unbelievable cutbacks over the years. The erosion of government funding, particularly core funding, has had a very dramatic impact on the non-profit sector. It has left people scrambling to find little bits and pieces of money from this foundation or that foundation. Sometimes it is a matter of $5,000 or $10,000 to keep themselves going.

I wanted to raise that issue during the debate on the bill because it seems to me that the bill is so focused on the regulatory approach for non-profits that it is missing the huge issue of what we need to be addressing for the non-profit sector in Canada.

I think it is very unfortunate that we are debating this bill that was first introduced in 2004. It has certainly had a long history. Here we are debating this bill that lays out this mega-regime of Robert's Rules of Order and says that everybody is going to come under this regime.

What we should be discussing and what we should be doing, particularly in these economic times when so many people are falling behind and so many people who previously did not rely on organizations like food banks, legal aid or organizations that do advocacy, is helping those people who are now having to turn to those organizations to get the help that they need.

We are certainly now entering a very critical period in Canadian society where the economic recession is having this incredible impact on communities, people and families where before perhaps they were completely self-sufficient and they did not require the help and assistance.

One of the problems that we are facing in our community is the cuts in legal aid. There are a number of non-profit organizations that deliver legal aid services. In the best of times their parameters were fairly restrictive. There is money that goes from the federal government to the provinces for legal aid. This is very much a part of our judicial system and all Canadians should be guaranteed the right to access and opportunity to legal representation.

However, as these cutbacks have just come wave after wave, we are now facing a situation in B.C. where low income communities are being hit particularly hard. The organizations that are there, whether it is the UBC Law Student's Society that provides legal aid or the legal aid system itself, they are now under severe pressure trying to meet the demand as more and more people, who may have previously had their own resources to deal with the judicial system, are now unable to do so. That is a very serious situation.

In looking at this bill I know that other colleagues of mine in the NDP are very concerned about this bill. We are concerned about the scope of the bill. We are concerned about how far reaching it is and how it may dampen enthusiasm and the involvement of people. When we read the bill, the things that are required of people individually, as well as the organization in question if it falls under the mandate of this bill, are quite incredible.

We have a lot of concern about how broad a net this bill casts in terms of creating a system where organizations basically have very little choice to perform in a way that maybe they have evolved over the years. It seems to me that this idea that there is only one standard to uphold accountability or transparency is really quite false.

The fact is the vast majority of non-profit organizations are very democratic. They are transparent. They are accountable. It is in their very nature to do that because their very reason for being is based on community service. It is based on service to society.

Therefore, these organizations tend to be very open and straightforward about what they are doing. They have nothing to hide. It is not like there is some big multinational corporation that is involved in goodness knows what kind of financial transactions and trying to skim and move money, such as what we see in this financial crisis that we have before us now. Non-profit organizations are not really in that kind of game. They are in service to the community. Even the large organizations, whether they be the Red Cross or others, have a different kind of mandate.

One of the concerns that we have is that it may be necessary for us to see a framework of regulations that would ensure better accountability for some of these large organizations that do engage in business opportunities. It seems that this is now being cast over every organization that falls within the scope and the mandate of the bill, so we have a problem with that.

I did want to express the concerns that we have about the bill, but most of all I want to thank the incredible non-profit organizations in my community that provide an amazing service. I do not think I could do the job that I do if they were not doing what they do. We work in very close partnership with each other. We all need to recognize these organizations and what they do in our communities.

[Infrastructure, February 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this recession is looking a lot worse than anyone forecasted. There are now 1.3 million Canadians looking for work, yet the government's plan is clearly too little, too late and its infrastructure rules are too stringent to lead the economic recovery that Canadians need.

We do not need to wait to see if things will get worse. They are worse right now.

Will the government increase its stimulus package and remove the matching infrastructure rules that are slowing down the country's economic recovery?