Libby Davies

[Petitions, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the lost subsidy for the section 95 housing co-ops. It calls upon the government to restore all of the lost subsidy and to provide new assistance to help section 95 co-ops remain with low income residents.

The petition also calls upon the government to build 200,000 affordable and co-op housing units, renovate 100,000 existing units and provide rental supplements to help with the housing crisis in the country.

[Petitions, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first one concerns a just and honourable redress for Chinese head tax families and presses the case that all Chinese head tax families without a surviving head tax payer or spouse deserve appropriate redress based on one certificate and one claim and calls upon Parliament and the government to negotiate in good faith.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that B.C.ers do feel ignored and no amount of political spin can correct that. The finance minister seems to think that Canada ends at the Rocky Mountains.

Concrete actions could have been taken, like increasing the northern living allowance by 50% as the NDP demanded. But surprise, surprise, the only change made in the whole country to the allowance was made in the Conservative whip's riding.

Why not do what is right and increase the allowance by 50% and expand it, instead of this politically motivated change that we see in the budget?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has been ignored in the budget and the finance minister should immediately take steps to correct the situation.

There was nothing to fight pine beetle devastation, no flood strategy for the Fraser River, nothing for the Kamloops airport, nothing to help the owners of leaky condos, and nothing for affordable housing.

The Conservatives could have done all of that, but they chose not to. Why did the government fail ordinary British Columbians in the budget?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the number of homeless in Vancouver has doubled since 2002, yet shelters like the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre are being forced to close their doors because they cannot get funding.

The federal budget completely ignores the housing crisis facing Vancouver. Not a dime was dedicated for desperately needed housing.

Nothing in this budget closes the growing gap between wealth and poverty; nothing for a federal $10 minimum wage; nothing to help the underemployed, highly skilled immigrant Canadians who cannot get their credentials recognized; and nothing on the billions of dollars in EI surplus.

To add insult to injury, a workers' rights bill to ban replacement workers was defeated last night because the Liberals ganged up with the Conservatives to say, no, to fairness for working Canadians. When will the government get it? Workers want a decent wage, families want secure, affordable housing, and we all benefit from fair labour practices.

I am proud to say that 100% of NDP MPs voted yes to the anti-scab bill yesterday.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of additional points. The House leader of the official opposition and the House leader for the Bloc are making the argument that the overriding issue is the magnitude and scope of an opposition day motion and that overrides everything. This is an argument to be made, that the opposition supply days should be open, should be broad and should be unfettered. I agree with that.

However, I think there are other issues and principles that come into this discussion. It is one thing to change the Standing Orders, but we are talking about a supply day motion that changes legislation. I do not think it was ever contemplated in Marleau and Montpetit or the Constitution, for example, that members of the House would lose the right to propose an amendment to legislation, without the consent of the mover, which is what would happen in this case. This is definitely a problem.

When we deal with legislation, we have a right to move amendments. In committee we have a right to move amendments at report stage. If this legislation is bundled together in kind of an omnibus bill in a motion, then we are forfeiting the right to move an amendment unless we get the consent of the mover of the motion, which I think is a real problem.

The other point is when we, through the usual procedures, seek agreement on a bill, we do it through unanimous consent. On this basis, using a supply day, we would be doing it on the basis of a majority vote, which is an entirely different procedure.

I understand the arguments that are being made, but there is another principle. Again, as a smaller party, this is something that would affect us very much.

This has to be part of the weighing up of this issue, that it is not just a matter of the scope the opposition has in terms of an opposition day. It is the rights of members to move amendments and whether something can be done through unanimous consent or a simple majority.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has sparked quite a discussion. It is an important issue that requires serious consideration in terms of what kind of precedent is being set and how we consider the Standing Orders, the rules of the House.

I would note that while we are not debating the merits of the motion which is slated to be the opposition day motion tomorrow, I would point out that the four bills coincidentally that are in the motion were actually the subject of discussions which took place among the House leaders. There is a process whereby the parties can get together and decide whether or not there is agreement to fast track a certain bill or a number of bills for speedy passage. We often do that by unanimous consent. The very bills that are referred to in the motion have been the subject of those kinds of discussions.

I certainly have some concerns that we are now segueing into another procedure. Discussions by the House leaders were taking place in the usual manner and we were to get back to the government about where there was agreement, and I think there is agreement that we may be able to pass some of the bills unanimously, but suddenly, we have been confronted with a motion that bundles things together. The motion is doing through the back door what otherwise would be done through another process. We certainly want to voice some concerns about that in terms of what sort of precedent it sets in the House.

For example, on one of the bills, Bill C-22, the age of consent legislation, we are still in a position where witnesses have not yet been heard.

We are here to debate legislation. We are here to do the public's business. We are here to give due process to things. While that does not preclude any of us from seeking unanimous consent to get something done, I believe that this is a very irregular procedure. On that point, it is something which should be seriously considered as to whether or not it is in order to do business in that manner, especially in the context that these precise items were already under discussion or were already being dealt with using the procedures that we have before us and in a way that everybody understands and in a way which every party partakes.

If that procedure in the motion is approved, this is the kind of thing where we in the NDP, the smallest party in the House, would be the ones who would often be the victims of this kind of procedure as the smallest party. I do not think that is intended.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the points that have been raised. I would ask you not to just give a quick ruling on this, but to actually consider the precedent that is being set here and the fact that it is in some ways subverting the usual procedures that we have established to deal with this kind of business.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to be very clear on what it is that we are dealing with here. We were dealing with a point of order on the Liberal opposition day motion, which the government has questioned. I certainly would like to make comments on that.

If we are to proceed, I would like there to be some debate on the point of order and then you can make a ruling. If there are other motions as a result of that for unanimous consent, usually we have discussions among the House leaders and we agree where there is unanimous consent on something or not. However, if the government decides to put forward something, that is its prerogative.

We should be dealing with this point of order and have that concluded before we deal with any other motions.

[The Budget, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the budget thefinance minister has just delivered fails to close the prosperity gap in this country. With the $9 billion in corporate tax cuts and the failure to take away the tax advantages for the oil sands, it seems the budget was written more for those around the board room table, not around the kitchen table. How can the Conservatives claim that this is a budget for working families and ordinary Canadians? When we look at this budget, we can see that it fails on many measures.

Despite new funding for post-secondary education, working and middle class families will face higher tuition fees and student debt will continue to rise. Despite funding for health care, families will continue to pay for prescription drugs and home care. There is nothing in this budget for veterans and there is nothing in this budget for seniors despite motions that have been passed in the House. There is no new money in this budget for housing, of which there is a critical shortage in this country.

I would like to ask the finance minister, why is it that this budget does nothing to close the prosperity gap in this country?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 19th, 2007]

With respect to programs and spending administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) within the riding of Vancouver East: (a) what was the amount spent in 2006; (b) what is the projected budget for 2007; (c) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families currently exist; and (d) how many CMHC-funded housing units for singles and families are planned for 2007?