Libby Davies

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today with an opportunity to speak to the budget implementation bill, especially from the perspective of residents of east Vancouver.

A budget is a test and measure for any government. To me a budget is about who gains and who loses. When we look at the Conservative budget that was brought out a couple of months ago, it was very clear that many Canadians felt they had lost. When we look at a riding like east Vancouver and see some of the pressing issues that people are dealing with on a daily basis, there was really nothing in the budget that helped people.

It strikes me as a massive contradiction that on the one hand we can spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan, I think more than $4 billion to date, on a war that is simply unwinnable, a mission that is totally wrong for Canada, yet we can ignore pressing issues in our own country, such as homelessness or lack of affordable housing.

British Columbia is getting ready for the Olympics in 2010. There is certainly a lot of pride and activity taking place, but there is also a lot of concern that as we approach the Olympics things are going to get very expensive, that we do not have the right kind of investment in our social infrastructure and that a lot of people are going to get left behind.

One of the recent initiatives that took place was a remarkable process that brought together representatives of government, the city, NGOs, local community groups and business. It was the 2010 B.C. in the city housing table that looked at issues around the Olympics, with particular focus on housing.

It was remarkable that this diverse group of organizations and different interests came together and agreed that for the 2010 Olympics we needed to build a minimum of 3,200 units of social and affordable housing in the city of Vancouver. If it is not done, then we are going to see a real tragedy take place. Already homelessness has doubled in Vancouver in the GVRD over the last few years.

I raise this because to me housing is a very basic human right. Housing is a very basic issue that affects Canadians. If there is no adequate, safe, affordable, secure housing, then pretty well everything else in one's life is going to go wrong. It is a basic thing that needs to be there.

When we look at the fact that homelessness has actually doubled and there are many more tens of thousands of people who are threatened to be or are on the verge of being homeless, then to me it is simply astounding that in the last federal budget put forward by the Conservative government there was no new money for an affordable housing strategy. There was no new money for even a housing strategy that would have focused on the so-called marketplace, nevermind co-op or social housing, which I know the Conservatives generally are ideologically opposed to.

This is a very glaring omission in the Conservative budget and it is something that concerns us greatly, not only in my own community of east Vancouver but in British Columbia generally. Even the B.C. Liberal government has woken up to the reality to some extent on the housing crisis in British Columbia. It recently announced a number of initiatives that would begin to at least take some initial steps to deal with the housing crisis that is going to loom greater and greater as we approach the 2010 Olympics.

The large question that people have is this. Where is the federal government? Why is the federal government not at the table providing a strategy and the funding complement to ensure that people are not sleeping on the street, that people are not paying 40%, 50% and 60% of their incomes on housing, and that people have the right access to secure, safe and affordable housing?

That is one very severe problem with this budget. On the one hand it is spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan, continuing with $8 billion corporate tax cuts, and yet it is not focusing any money to a basic need such as housing.

Let us be very clear; it is not a lack of fiscal capacity. The federal government is rolling in cash. We have seen a $13 billion surplus last year. We have seen a $5 billion surplus this year. The last two Conservative budgets are very ideologically driven. They are driven in terms of offering a few tax incentives. They are driven in terms of providing a few individual incentives, but they do nothing to eliminate the growing inequities that we see in our society where the gap between poverty and wealth is getting bigger and bigger.

A budget is an opportunity for any government, but particularly the federal government, to look at that big picture, to look at that macro picture, to look at the fact that we have lost 250,000 manufacturing jobs since 2002, to look at the fact that we have a housing crisis, to look at the fact that most women in this country find it harder to keep pace, and most families find it harder to keep pace because they cannot find child care and if they do, they cannot afford it.

Those are some of the measures and it is very disappointing, which is an understatement, to see that this federal budget did not address any of those questions. Most of the groups that I know and work with in my riding have been struggling even to keep going. Many of them faced a lot of difficulties in even knowing if they would receive the limited funds to continue in the new fiscal year, whether it was arts groups, housing groups who rely on emergency housing programs, or women's programs.

Even at that very basic front line service delivery level, many organizations have been thrown into near crisis because they could not get a clear answer as to whether or not their very small operating funds were actually going to come through under the Conservative government. That is a pretty sad state of affairs.

In the aboriginal community there are many organizations that are really struggling to make ends meet. The demands that they face in terms of providing emergency programs, shelter programs, training programs are enormous. The need out there in the community is simply enormous. In the 10 years that I have been an MP, whether under the Liberal government and now under the Conservative government, we have seen these demands get bigger and bigger. What has happened in this country is that the social safety net that people used to be very proud of, not only does it have holes in it but it is really now non-existent.

There are many artists in east Vancouver. There is nothing in this budget, even a simple thing like tax averaging that would give artists a little bit of a break.

Within the NDP we voted against the budget because we thought it was a dismal failure. It was not placing priorities where they needed to be. It is a budget that is clearly directed toward corporate elites in this country. It is not a budget that is directed toward meeting the needs that people have on a daily basis, whether it is health care, drug costs, housing, child care, support for aboriginal people, dealing with children's programs, and the list goes on and on, not to mention students.

How long have we stood in the House and talked about the terrible situation that students face where their debt load has increased and tuition has tripled in the last 15 years. Again this would have been an opportunity for the federal government to take some real concrete steps in saying that if we believe in our future generation, we are going to make sure that post-secondary education is accessible. Unfortunately, it is becoming less and less accessible because the federal government has moved away from supporting post-secondary education.

I have to say that from the point of view of my local community, from the point of view of a national perspective and even our international obligations, this budget gets a failing grade and that is why we are opposing it.

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member from the Bloc. I know the Bloc is supporting the amendment put forward by the government to send this bill back to the Senate.

I want to put forward the reasonableness of the argument in terms of dealing with the merit of this Senate amendment. In terms of fixed election dates, it seems to me that taking into account what is happening in a local context, whether it be in Quebec or in any other part of Canada, is reasonable. I am just curious as to why the Bloc would support the government amendment and not support the amendment from the Senate.

I realize there is all kind of other subtext going on with this debate in terms of it being embroiled with the Senate and what it can or cannot do. We in the NDP are looking at this straight on in terms of whether this is a reasonable amendment. This amendment requests the Chief Electoral Officer to take into account what may be happening in local jurisdictions, whether it is a plebiscite or a referendum. This happened recently in Ontario where a fixed election date was moved to accommodate a religious holiday. This is not mandatory. This would give the Chief Electoral Officer the scope to consider that as part of what would be recommended to the government.

In terms of a legislative initiative, it seems to us that the Senate amendment makes sense and the response from the government to send a message back indicating that it does not agree with it does not make sense. I would like to ask the member this. Why would he not agree with the original amendment that has come forward on this bill that would give the Chief Electoral Officer a little more scope to consider what advice he would be offering?

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals began this mission and both the Conservatives and the Liberals have kept us there.

If over 500 Canadian reservists are headed to Kandahar next February, is this not an escalation? If it is not an escalation, then what is? The government's direction in Afghanistan seems clear. It wants to have a surge in forces, increasing combat and more firepower.

The question is, why is Canada going so far beyond what other NATO forces consider to be acceptable, despite what the minister said today?

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this week the NDP asked the government about negotiations with the United Arab Emirates to send some of their soldiers to Kandahar and including Leclerc main battle tanks and two platoons of armoured reconnaissance vehicles and self-propelled guns.

Why has the government gone outside of NATO? Is this an attempt to create a Bush-style troop surge for this spring? We need a clear answer from the government.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek knows what he is talking about. He is speaking from his own experience of what these health and safety issues are for railway workers. I thank him for--

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that I am most terribly sorry if this member is inconvenienced because he has to be here tonight to deal with this legislation. That is really so sad. We consider it a matter of duty to deal with this legislation and to debate it in a legitimate and serious way. If it takes all night and if it takes all day that is what we are prepared to do. My apologies if that one member has been inconvenienced by being here tonight.

In terms of his assertion that the NDP has been unresponsive to farm families, I have to say that he should go and look at the record. He should go and look at which party and which members have been raising the issues of farm families in this House. It has been the NDP.

Which members have been raising the issue of the Wheat Board and the democratic rights of farmers who were elected to that Wheat Board, which the Conservative government has thrown out and has been trying to violate? It has been the New Democratic Party.

In any labour dispute or any strike, there is an economic disruption. That is a reality. I do not deny that. Nobody in this House could deny that. But we have rights in this country for workers and employers. It is a process that has been well honed. It is based on practice. It is based on law.

Yes, there can be economic disruption and economic hardship, but the fact is that if the government had taken the time to act properly and to make sure the process worked, then we would not be where we are today: dealing with this legislation.

I put it back to the member. I believe it is the government that has let down those farm families by letting us get to the point where we now have back to work legislation. There could have been much earlier preventative action taken. We could have had a collective agreement and a fair process could have taken place.

The member should not lecture us about supporting farm families. We have done our job and we will continue to do our job. It is the Conservative government that has let down those provinces and the Prairies--

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his very fulsome question. My quick response would be that maybe the Conservative government members have become as arrogant as the former Liberal government so quickly that they forget the interests of the people they represent.

As for that list the member read off, whether it is the pine beetle infestation in British Columbia, the impact of the softwood lumber agreement and the incredible impact it has had on workers' lives, or this back to work legislation and the impact of rail safety, all of these are issues that affect people in their working lives and affect their families.

One of the issues in this labour dispute and strike is the health and safety issue. The hours of work affect not only the workers on the railroad but affect their families too. This is about quality of life, something we hear that the Conservatives believe in supporting. They seem to have forgotten that in British Columbia, as they have across the country.

Again I think it begs the question as to why this legislation really has been brought in. Is it for a political agenda? Is it to clear the political deck so that the Conservatives can make whatever decision they want if they decide to go for an election?

This certainly is not being done in the interests of workers, neither those at CN nor any other workers. It is not being done in the interests of British Columbia, because if that were the government's motivation it would have invested its resources, its influence and its political work in making that process work.

Instead, what we seen is that at the earliest opportunity Conservatives opted out to bring in back to work legislation. That is a sign of their failure and their lack of responsibility in making sure that a process that exists could work.

I would agree with the member that the Conservative government has completely let down British Columbians and certainly has let down these workers who are doing their best to make these processes work and to get their legitimate issues addressed. The government has let them down.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to continue with my remarks and my speech at third reading.

I know that there are members in the House who do not consider this to be an important matter and are making comments, making jokes, but we in the NDP happen to believe that this is a very important process.

We are here in our places because we want to uphold the labour rights in this country. What we have seen the government do in terms of ramming through this legislation has been something that we find very despicable and insulting to the process and the history of what labour rights are about in this country.

It is very curious that once the tentative agreement was rejected, it was less than a week that the government then brought in the back to work legislation. I think we have to ask this question. What was the rush on the government's part? We have heard repeatedly that the economic sky was going to fall in Canada and things would fall apart, but that was certainly not the case.

I think it begs the question that maybe this Conservative government has another agenda and that is that it wants to clear the decks for a possible election. It knows that it needed to get this back to work legislation through the House because once an election is called it would not be able to do that.

I want to put that out there because there was really no reason for the government to move so quickly against these workers who have a legitimate interest and who have a legitimate process that they were abiding by.

I would say again, they were out on a legal strike. They engaged in a legal process. They voted on a tentative agreement which they had a right to approve or to vote down. They chose to vote it down. They also have the right to a process to engage in further rotating strikes, to engage in further negotiations. We believe that is what should have happened instead of this kind of legislation that is being brought forward.

I want to say in speaking to this bill that some of the issues of concern about why this strike happened in the first place have been entirely lost. I want to commend my colleagues in the NDP for standing up one after another today to keep this debate going, to put on the public record what the real issues have been in this strike. I want to say that the main concern that has been put forward by the 2,800 members of the United Transportation Union has been health and safety. These are the men and the women who keep our railways operating. These are the men and women who work sometimes terrible shifts, in terrible working conditions, in unsafe working conditions to keep these trains rolling across the country.

We believe that the issues that they have placed in terms of why they went on strike are issues that have to be resolved. For that reason we are very concerned that the government's bill that includes only a final offer selection will not be an adequate process and will not allow these issues to be fully addressed.

We happen to believe that the health and safety of workers is of paramount importance to all Canadians. That is why we have a Labour Code.

If we cannot address that in a labour agreement, if we cannot address that during a strike, if we cannot get those issues on the table, and we are left with just basically a final offer selection, then we believe that is very undemocratic and very unfair.

We want to say to the government today, because we know that the bill is going to be rammed through tonight and it is going to be approved, that it has a responsibility in terms of ensuring the health and safety of those workers. We want to ensure that those men and women do not experience the kind of derailments that we have seen across the country.

One of my colleagues pointed out earlier that we have seen a doubling of the derailments and the safety incidents that have taken place. Whether it has been in the Fraser Canyon, Pickering, Ontario, or in New Brunswick this has become an all too common occurrence under CN operations. It begs the question as to what is taking place in this company and why is it that health and safety issues and working conditions have fallen so far down the agenda. What is the government doing to address those concerns because it will not be fairly addressed through a final offer selection?

I do want to say as well that in this debate we have brought forward the issues that are of concern to the workers. We have been very dismayed by the debate in this House. It has been completely dismissive of those issues.

My colleagues and I have been on those picket lines. We have spoken to the workers. We know that their decision to go on strike in the first place was not made lightly. People only do this as a last measure when all other resources and processes have failed.

I think we have to come to an acknowledgment in this House that with this legislation that is being rammed through tonight there still will be all kinds of outstanding issues and conflicts that will result for this company and for the workers who work for this company.

As has been pointed out before, this is truly scandalous and obscene for a corporation where the CEO makes $56 million a year in salary and bonuses, which is something like $9,000 an hour. It is truly obscene to see that on the one hand and on the other hand to see that the legitimate interests of workers are not being adequately addressed. Where is the fairness in that process? We have to ask ourselves why this company allowed it to get to this point where we are now in this kind of situation.

The NDP has been very unequivocal in its opposition to this back to work legislation. I remember that when I was first elected in 1997 we had another piece of back to work legislation concerning the postal workers. I remember standing in this House at about 2 a.m. and feeling disgusted that one of the first pieces of business that I had to vote on was sending workers back to work when they had not had a fair negotiating process. I did not think we would see that kind of situation come about again, but here we are again tonight.

I am very dismayed to see that only members of the NDP and members of the Bloc have been opposed to this back to work legislation. It makes me wonder what on earth has happened to members of the Liberal Party, who purport to support labour rights. We saw them vote against the anti-scab legislation. We saw them flip-flop on that. But on something as basic as this back to work legislation, I can tell members that the labour movement is truly dismayed that the Liberal Party has abandoned workers in this country by voting in favour of this back to work legislation. It is something that we expect from the Conservative government, but it is not something that we expected from the Liberal Party.

We stand here proudly, because even when it is unpopular to do so we believe that back to work legislation should not be used. We believe a legitimate process should be allowed to take place.

I am very proud today to rise in my place and to say on behalf of all New Democrats that we categorically oppose this back to work legislation. We believe it is a denial and a violation of the rights of these workers. It is not a democratic process. The elements of this bill will not produce a fair arbitration process and will not address the issues that are still outstanding for the 2,800 members of this union.

We will be voting against this legislation. We do it on principle. We do it on substance. We do it for an understanding of what it means for these workers. We do it on the basis of understanding what it means for workers in this country as a whole. It is a black day for workers when any legislation like this is used by Parliament, legislation that violates our Labour Code and our labour standards and undermines those democratic processes.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP as we now enter third reading of Bill C-46, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations.

Having looked at that name, and as many of my colleagues have said earlier in debate today, the bill is a very draconian bill and it is nothing more than ramming through back to work legislation that is impacting the health, safety and lives of workers who assume a tremendous risk in terms of their operations on the railway.

I want to say that many of my colleagues in the NDP have been on the picket lines. We have spoken with workers who have been out on strike and I would point out that this was a legal strike.

There have been many comments made in the House that have undermined the rights of workers who have been engaged in a legitimate strike, in a legitimate process under Canada's Labour Relations Act. Even today there is a perception that somehow the workers who have been involved in this labour dispute, a very nasty dispute with an employer, CN, are somehow in the wrong.

However, let us be very clear. When the workers rejected the tentative offer that was negotiated, as they have the right to do, they began a series of rotating strikes. Let it be known and let it be very clear, that it was the company, it was CN, which then proceeded to lock out the workers.

The misconceptions that have taken place in terms of this labour dispute have done a huge disservice to the members of this union. I want to say to the 2,800 members of the United Transportation Union who have had the guts and the courage to uphold their rights in the face of a very difficult situation--

[Railway Operations Legislation, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that every time in Parliament that we rise for a question period on a topic such as this which involves closure on a bill that is before the House, or will soon be before the House, it is an occasion that we should treat very seriously because as parliamentarians we are here to debate legislation. We are here to promote public discourse. We are here to put forward various perspectives and points of view.

When a governing party brings in a closure motion, which is what we are now dealing with today, to ram through legislation in an act of desperation, we have this 30 minute period to question why indeed this is happening. I am very pleased to rise today to question the minister and the government as to why they are now, at this point, bringing in closure on the back to work legislation.

It begs a question. Back to work legislation is a very serious issue. The situation involving CN and its employees has been dragging on for months. The members of the union have very legitimate issues around health and safety, which we will get into when we debate this bill. However, to deny workers a legitimate right to negotiate and to go back to the table, to force through legislation and bring in closure on top of that, and to rail this through Parliament in a few hours, which is what is going to take place today unless it can be held up, is a very serious matter.

I want to question the government on the principle and on the grounds of democratic process. It is using this very heavy-handed and blunt instrument of closure to force through this legislation that will deny workers the opportunity to negotiate in good faith.

We have seen CN locking out workers. We saw union members legitimately reject a tentative agreement. They have a right to do that. That is part of the Labour Code. That is part of fair collective bargaining and negotiations: the right of a membership to make its own estimation as to whether or not it agrees to a tentative agreement.

The members decided they did not like that tentative agreement and they voted it down resoundingly. They now, I believe, have a right to go back into the process and get into negotiations, and the minister's office and the government should be facilitating that. They should be using all of their resources to ensure that that happens, not using this hammer and saying, “We give up on this now. We are just going to roll over and do what CN wants us to do. We are going to bring in this back to work legislation and more than that, we are going to use a second hammer to bring in closure and make sure we march it through Parliament as quickly as possible”.

We in the NDP, on principle, find that to be offensive. We find it to be anti-democratic. We find it to be in violation of the basic principles around labour fairness in this country.

I would like the government to respond to that in terms of how it justifies what it is now proposing and putting forward before this House, these very drastic measures to railroad through this legislation.