Libby Davies

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us get real here. The 200 page playbook came from the Conservative government. It is too bad that its so-called climate change plan was not as comprehensive.

The Conservatives have a plan on how to manipulate witnesses but no plan for job losses. They have a plan on how to obstruct debate but no plan on how to deal with skyrocketing prescription drug costs.

I am asking the government House leader to table this playbook so Canadians can see just how petty, vindictive and undemocratic the government really is.

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, so much for blaming the opposition for the obstruction of Parliament. Now we learn that the monkey wrench gang has had a plan all along, and not just any plan, a 200 page playbook on how to frustrate, obstruct and shut down the democratic process.

Is this what the Conservatives meant when they said that they would make the minority Parliament work? Does the government House leader have the courage to show Canadians their anti-democratic tactics? Will he table the obstruction playbook in this House today?

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2007]

No, it is four to eight.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, although I did not hear the full debate and just caught the last comments of the member, I share a number of his concerns about an over-reliance on the Criminal Code to fix problems around crime instead of having a balanced approach around crime prevention and building healthy communities.

From the point of view of minimum mandatory sentences, I would remind the member that it was the former Liberal government that, I believe, had brought in about 60 such new offences in terms of minimum mandatories.

Our justice critic has made it very clear that where we can use it in a very specific way, and the issue of drunk driving would be one of those instances, it can be very effective. However, in actual fact we already have a history, as a result of the previous government, of using minimum mandatory sentences.

I believe that in the last election the then Liberal leader made a commitment that he would double the minimum mandatory sentences for this particular offence that would go actually beyond where the current bill is. It would have been a doubling of the sentence and would have taken us beyond where we are now. I just wanted to remind the member of that in terms of the history.

[Criminal Code, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the Minister of Justice say that he wants to intervene earlier, and he has talked a little bit in his comments about Bill C-10 about crime prevention and community-based programs.

Following up on the comments made by the member from the Bloc, it seems that we have seen a huge amount of emphasis from the Conservative government on its crime agenda and that it is very willing to grab the Criminal Code and say, “What are we going to do to toughen up the Criminal Code and bring in more penalties?”

In certain circumstances, that is obviously an appropriate thing to do, but I think it begs the question as to what is the government's agenda in terms of crime prevention?

We have virtually had no debate on this. We have seen no initiatives from the Conservatives. I think that most people in local communities would agree that certainly law enforcement and penalties are very important measures.

However, the real building block of healthy and safe communities is around dealing with proper housing and dealing with substance abuse in a way that is actually helping people, from a health point of view, and not simply just throwing people in jail because of a health issue and a substance use issue.

I would really like to ask the minister this question. Although he made the briefest of references to crime prevention, where is the government's agenda on crime prevention and supporting strong and healthy communities? We have really seen that it does not exist from what the government has brought forward in terms of the budget and other legislative initiatives. I would like to ask him to comment on that.

[The Environment, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservatives and B.C. Liberals are pushing ahead to spend millions of dollars on the narrow thinking gateway proposal, which will include the expansion of Highway 1 into Vancouver. This transportation strategy is facing growing opposition from residents because it undermines the liveability and environmental sustainability of our region.

The federal government must take the lead by supporting environmentally sustainable solutions. People in East Vancouver and across the region want meaningful consultation from all levels of government, focusing investment on sustainable and achievable transportation initiatives that include better land use decisions, investment in public transit and the efficient use of existing roads and rail.

Expansion and growth at any cost is not an option. Instead, we must work with local communities for ethical and environmentally friendly solutions that meet climate change goals.

I recently held five forums in East Vancouver on climate change in our environment. The message from people was clear and powerful: make public policy decisions that improve our environment, not destroy it.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is signed by hundreds of people in British Columbia who note that the federal minimum wage was eliminated in 1996 and that to have a federal minimum wage is a very important matter to ensure that workers get a decent living wage.

It calls upon Parliament to ensure that workers in federal jurisdictions are paid a fair minimum wage by passing the NDP's Bill C-375 to re-establish a federal minimum wage and set it at $10 an hour.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I present is from petitioners who are very concerned about the need for affordable and co-op housing units, and the loss of subsidies to co-op housing units that were cut under the section 95 program.

It calls upon Parliament to repay all of the lost subsidies, to provide new assistance to co-ops and to build 200,000 affordable and co-op housing units.

[Petitions, May 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present three petitions.

The first one concerns the terminator seed that is designed to render seeds sterile at harvest and thus prevent farmers from saving and replanting seeds.

It calls upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation a permanent national ban on the terminator seed.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it does raise the whole question of what we can do through legislation and what we need to do in other ways, and the fact is that sexual abuse in our society is a very serious problem.

Obviously, parents and caregivers are people who are in a primary position of responsibility to provide trust and support, but as the member has pointed out, sometimes that does not happen. Sometimes the abuse may be in the home or sometimes it may be in a foster situation, or it may be young people who are on the street already.

To me, that is why it is so important, and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health points this out very well, that we actually need to have programs, supports and services that provide those services in a non-judgmental and accessible way for young people. If we think we are going to solve everything through legislation, then we are making a huge mistake and we are actually driving young people more and more into an environment where they will not seek help when they need it.

I represent a community where we do have street youth, where we have kids who are really at very high risk, and this legislation is not necessarily going to help them. What they need are services and supports right at the grassroots, right in the local community that they can believe in, that they know they can access. When that happens and a relationship of trust is developed, that is where we can then work with them and help them make decisions about their own health, about their own lives.

However, if young people are fearful to go to that service or support program because they feel that they will be deemed illegal, then they are not going to do that. That is what I think is one of the consequences and problems with this bill, that we may be actually driving away the very young people who are at risk, who actually need help, because we will be putting them in this environment where they feel that they cannot come forward.