Libby Davies

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised an important issue. Would it not be a much better scenario if we were actually debating in the House not this bill but legislation that would actually assist aboriginal people with their appalling conditions and actually look at the recent report that just came out that showed us that there is a massive overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our judicial system? We could then look at the systemic discrimination and oppression that takes place.

If we had that kind of debate, we would be doing more to help our judicial system than we will ever do with a bill like this.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I could almost see the piece of paper with all the little message boxes written on it telling the member what to say.

I am very proud to say that the NDP was founded on the principle of cooperation and that remains one of our founding values. The idea that we do not come here to cooperate is nonsense. We take our role in this Parliament very seriously and constructively. In my comments today I indicated that the government has a choice to seek cooperation with the other parties. That point has been made very clear.

We believe the earlier an intervention is made the better. We start with healthy communities. We start by providing people with decent housing and good jobs. We start by providing young people with good and accessible education. We would not cut out literacy programs and force kids on to the streets where they have a future with no hope. Let us look at the foundations of a good judicial system in terms of helping develop citizens with a sense of what needs to be done as part of the community. These are very important things, but they never get addressed by the government.

Early intervention in the judicial system and in crime prevention, community health and community support are very important. The system might work a whole lot better if Crown prosecutors were not so overburdened and could do their work and get a dangerous offender designation. The government does not seem to be interested in doing that. It seems to be interested in these very radical laws, which have never been shown to work, based on its public relations exercise of fooling the public that things will get a whole lot better with the Conservatives in government. I think there is growing suspicion from the Canadians. They know that is not true. They know these laws are dangerous and that they are likely to be struck down. This bill in particular I believe will probably be struck down in the House.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, from our point of view in the NDP, we think that to wait until someone has had a third conviction and then as part of the sentencing use this reverse onus is kind of a false premise. As I said in my remarks earlier, we would much prefer to see the development of agreement from the government and other parties about how we can better support the prosecutors when they seek dangerous offender status in even the first go around. Why are we waiting for the third conviction?

I stand by my comments about the reverse onus. It is not only me saying that. We have heard from all kinds of experts who understand the Constitution and the charter and what challenges there may be. When we are told that this law will create all kinds of problems in terms of challenges, then we ought to heed those words. It seems a bit silly to bring in a bill when there is the likelihood that it will be struck down and challenged. I think it leads to scepticism as to the government's real agenda.

We have to look at this bill in the context of a number of the other bills where we see the same problem. They seem to be more about creating the image and the public perception about what they are going to do without actually delivering the legal goods that will make it happen. That is why it is being met with a great deal of opposition and scepticism from members of Parliament.

[Criminal Code, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the federal New Democrat caucus on second reading of Bill C-27.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the very able justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who has given the NDP caucus incredible guidance, information and led the debate within the caucus on this bill as well as close to a dozen bills that have been thrown at the justice committee from the Conservative government. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh has earned respect from all sides of the House for his intelligence and wisdom and how he has approached these matters. I certainly speak today based on the wisdom and guidance that he has provided to the NDP caucus.

We are at a very interesting and critical juncture in this debate. Being the fourth party to speak, it has been clear to anyone watching the debate and if it was not clear to the government previously it would be clear to it now, that this bill is going down. Three parties are opposed to this bill at second reading, which as we know is a debate in principle. It looks like the bill will not go forward to committee. That is a very serious situation.

I listened, sometimes with a smile on my face, to the political rhetoric that has spewed forth time and time again from the government on this bill and many of the others. The government's mantra is that members who do not support these bills are soft on crime, that if they do not support Bill C-27, they are soft on crime; they are giving a free ride to criminals, they do not care about the public, they do not care about victims, they do not care about anything. We have heard it over and over again. Government members must dream about it and repeat in their sleep.

One of the members said we should look at reality. Let us look at reality. There are three opposition parties basically saying no to this bill because it is a very fundamentally flawed bill. The parties that have spoken thus far have given very strong both philosophical and intellectual reasons but also legal and practical reasons why this bill just does not cut it. That needs to be said.

We have heard from the Prime Minister that the opposition is delaying the crime bills. Bill C-22, the age of consent bill, was introduced in June but the government itself did not call it until yesterday. So much for the delay. The same goes for this bill. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate it.

Let us put aside all the political bunk and rhetoric and focus on the merits of this bill and whether or not it is a good, sound piece of legislation. Presumably that is what we come to this place to do, to represent our constituents, to represent sound public policy, public interest and to decide whether or not legislation that comes from the government is good. We make our judgment on that and decide whether the legislation should continue. That is what we are debating here today, not all the political rhetoric.

In terms of Bill C-27, as I said, the NDP caucus is opposed to it. I note that in the information put out by the justice minister's office we are told that this particular bill will make it easier for crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations. It goes on to point out that a cornerstone of the reforms in this bill is that an offender found guilty and convicted of a third designated violent or sexual offence must prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender. This is what is referred to as the reverse onus. This is one of the major reasons that certainly the NDP and other parties we have heard from today are opposed to this bill. Why is that so?

I would like to quote a very good article written by Paula Simons which appeared in the Edmonton Journal in October, as well as in the Regina Leader-Post, and maybe other publications. In that article the author pointed out:

It's a rule of law as old as the Magna Carta, a golden thread that runs through almost 800 years of British legal tradition. And it's enshrined in Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I begin with this first argument and fundamental point because it is very much the underpinning of the concerns that we have about the bill. The bill brings forward a provision that will bring in reverse onus and will remove from the system the state's responsibility to bring forward evidence to show that someone is a dangerous offender. The onus will be put on the offender to show why he or she is not a dangerous offender.

I point out that in basically eliminating these hundreds of years of tradition, we did have sections in the Criminal Code that did have reverse onus clauses. This is something that was actually contained in our Criminal Code before the charter, but since 1982 when the charter came in, those provisions have been either struck down by the courts or voluntarily removed through successive Criminal Code reviews and amendments.

We really need to understand that within our judicial system we have had a long-standing practice of assuming someone's innocence until he or she is proven guilty and looking at each case on its merit. We are not talking about a cookie cutter system where one checks off a little box and it is either black or white, yes or no. We are dealing with individual offences. We are dealing with individual victims. The basis of our justice system is that we have the capacity and the ability to make judgments based on applying the law as it exists to determine each of those cases.

Bill C-27 will be a massive reversal of that very important democratic and just tradition within our judicial system. For that reason alone, we are opposed to the bill.

In the current environment in our judicial system, 85% of current dangerous offenders are still in custody. They do not get out. We are talking about longer than a life sentence if someone is convicted as a dangerous offender.

I would argue, and I know our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, would argue that there is no doubt the provisions and the system we have require improvements, but the basic provisions that are there actually are working. Basically completely eliminating that provision and bringing in the reverse onus we see as something that one, will be struck down and will be subject to a charter challenge, and two, will not necessarily improve the safety of Canadians. We have heard that today throughout the debate.

The second problem I can identify is that the bill crosses a boundary whereby it will allow a federal jurisdiction, the federal government, to move into a provincial jurisdiction and tell prosecutors, who are under provincial jurisdiction under the administration of the law, what they should be doing. This is very problematic and is likely to be challenged and struck down.

It makes one think why a bill would be brought forward when two of its basic tenets are things that are legally very open to challenge. As we have heard today, there have been many expert opinions that these particular provisions would be struck down.

There is of course an enormous amount of concern in Canadian society about crime, safety and making sure that people who are dangerous are not on our streets. These are very legitimate things. As New Democrats, we want to ensure that we have the best criminal justice system which ensures that when a dangerous offence has taken place, someone is convicted and the appropriate sentence is given.

It seems surprising to us that under this proposed bill, we would wait until someone had been convicted a second and third time before this kind of provision would apply. The most efficient, intelligent and practical thing to do would be to make sure that the system is working as early as possible, in terms of earlier intervention, by providing crown prosecutors with the resources they need to get the convictions they need, when they can see that there is information and evidence before them.

Right now if a prosecutor is of a mind that there may be information that leads him or her to believe that someone should be prosecuted as a dangerous offender, it is expensive and it takes time to do that. It takes a lot of resources to do the investigation. The reality is that in some instances, prosecutors may back away from that because they are simply overwhelmed by the system as it is and what they can deal with in terms of managing the cases that they have.

The point I am trying to make is that if we are truly interested in making sure that dangerous offenders are locked up and that the public and our communities are safe, then surely we would want to ensure that the system is responding in a way that the prosecutors can actually do their jobs.

Rather than waiting for the second or the third conviction and then placing the onus on the offender to show why he or she would not be a dangerous offender or a risk to society, why not give the prosecutors the tools and the resources to actually do the job they need to do, so that we do not even get into those other situations? We believe that would be a much better scenario, a much better set of rules under which to operate.

What kind of message are we sending out to the public with this bill? We have heard the rhetoric from the government that it is all about getting tough on crime, but actually what we are saying is that it is okay to wait for the second or third time. Do we want to give offenders that third time?

From our point of view, it is much better to have a system that provides the resources and the tools to make the system work as it should and to make sure that the prosecutors are actually able to deal with these cases, and where they can see that the dangerous offender designation is required through prosecution, that they are actually able to follow that up. That is a very important point.

A fourth argument I would like to raise is that if there were a seriousness about this bill and dealing with dangerous offenders, then we should be looking at what we can change that would actually improve the work that takes place. One example would be changes to the evidentiary burden on the prosecutors. Right now they have to line up three psychiatrists when they are trying to prove their case for a dangerous offender. Maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe we should be saying that only two psychiatrists are necessary in order for the prosecutor to bring forward the required expert information.

There are a number of things that could be done within the system to actually improve the resources of the prosecutors to do their jobs, but this is being completely overlooked by the government. Instead we have this very heavy-handed approach that has been brought in by the government where there is absolutely no confidence whatsoever from anybody in the justice system and the law profession that this law will actually be upheld.

In fact earlier I heard the member from the Bloc say that this is why they are afraid of the government. It was a very interesting remark. I think it echoes a sentiment in the public that we see the government loading in these crime bills and there seems to be very little thought to some of them.

The opposition parties have worked together very closely at the justice committee and have tried to convince the government why some of these bills are so seriously flawed. Yet the government does not seem willing to engage in that debate. Therefore, one is left with the conclusion that it is about political spin. It is about the politics of fear. It is about playing on people's fear about crime and safety, which people have, without really ever addressing it.

One of the fears Canadians have is that we are moving closer and closer to the U.S. style of justice system where it has the “three strikes and you're out” laws in effect. The evidence shows us that it has not worked. Again, from this very good article in the Edmonton Journal, it quotes from a 2004 report by the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. It cited FBI crime statistics that showed violent crime and homicide rates between 1993 and 2002 dropped faster in states without the three strikes law. This is very interesting and we should learn from the very real evidence available in the United States.

I know members of the Conservative government will argue that this is not exactly the same law, but it is based on the same kinds of principles and it is moving us closer and closer to the kind of system we see in the United States. We have heard its kind of mantra on getting tough on crime.

The report also compared California to New York. California has the toughest three strikes law. It sent people to jail for life even if their third crime was stealing a piece of pizza. New York has no such legislation, yet its overall crime index fell 50% from 1993 to 2002. California's overall crime index fell only 39%.

Despite the fall in crime rate between 1994 and 2004, in the 10 years experience of the California three strikes policy, its prison population rose by almost 23%. The Justice Policy Institute study estimated that building and staffing the extra prisons to house all those prisoners cost the state an extra $8 billion U.S. over 10 years.

I bring forward these points of information because they are very pertinent to this debate, not only in terms of this bill but also other bills that are before the House. As a Bloc member said, this is why we are so afraid of the government. It is embarking on a radical departure. It seems hell-bent on radical changes whether they are shown to work or not. This should be of very grave concern to all of us.

I totally reject the arguments, which will come forward now, that the NDP is soft on crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to be intelligent about our response to crime and justice in our country. We want to ensure that there is sound public policy development. We want to ensure that we do not adopt legislation that has been shown not to work, that may create incredible havoc within the judicial system and that will undermine very fundamental principles established over many hundreds of years.

The government needs to take note. This is a minority Parliament. We have a majority of members in the House who say, with a united voice, that this is not good legislation and that it will be defeated. Therefore, the government members can squawk all they want about that. They can try to put out their political line that nobody on this side cares about crime, which we know is absolute nonsense, or they can get serious and engage in a real debate about what changes need to be made to the justice system. I have offered a few today, so have the other parties.

The Conservatives can choose if they so wish. If they are serious about putting public policy first and protecting the Canadian public, they can look at changes that will work within our judicial system. It is their decision. I do not know what they will decide, but they should take note of the fact that three parties now oppose the bill.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not personally see that possibility. However, we are talking about near in age here and what that cutoff should be. That is where the debate needs to centre. We can always put forward extremes and take the debate there. What we need to do is hear from young people--

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the question the member has raised is why we need to have this debate. Frankly, I am really surprised to hear the comment that he does not think that we should be hearing from young people, that somehow they do not have a point of view, that they do not have well-informed opinions, that sexual activity does not take place, and that somehow only those of a certain age are in a position to make a decision or a determination about what is consensual or not. I do not agree with that.

I think that young people should be engaged in this debate and we should be listening to them about what actually takes place. If we are here to sort of bury our heads in the sand and say that sexual activity either between young people or with some years in difference does not take place, and some of that activity is consenting, then I think we are fooling ourselves.

I will be the first one here to say that of course there are appalling and horrible situations of violence, coercion and exploitation. We see that in prostitution and the sex industry. That is why we have laws to ensure that does not take place. That is why it is important to have those protections to ensure that young people are not exploited.

However, this is a question that involves sexual activity of young people that is consenting and I think for anybody to deny that is just fooling themselves.

I realize there are different points of view and I realize there are very strongly held views, but my bottom line is that we have to hear from young people. We have to hear what they have to say. To somehow characterize that they do not know what they are talking about or there are not informed opinions out there, I think is very paternalistic and very condescending. We will, in the end, create harms in terms of the way young people view sexuality, their ability to come forward and talk about their sexuality, to get help when they need it, and not to be driven underground. Those are the concerns that I have. I believe that they are very legitimate. I believe that they need to be heard.

I realize that there are other members who will try and shut down the debate on sort of very moral grounds that they have. That is fine. They have a right to do that. However, I want to ensure that all these points of view are heard.

[Criminal Code, October 30th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the bill. Before I get into some of my detailed comments, I want to say something about the general nature of this debate.

First, the Prime Minister took the opposition to task and said that it was causing a delay on this bill. We should be very clear and put it on the record, as our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, did earlier, that the government tabled this bill back in June of this year, but it was only called for debate today. Therefore, the accusation and allegation that somehow the opposition is holding up the bill is absolutely ludicrous. This is the first day the government has called this important bill for debate.

My second point is a Liberal member rose to ask why we did not get on with passing the bill and stop the filibustering. What filibustering? We just started debating this bill a couple of hours ago. I know the Liberals put forward a proposal, with a number of other bills, to approve the bill on raising the age of consent with no debate or vote. Instead, we would have an omnibus motion and pass it. Maybe that is acceptable to some people, but I beg to differ and protest.

The reason we come to this place is because we are legislators. We come here to debate public policy. The more contentious and far-reaching that public policy is, the more we have a responsibility to engage in genuine debate and to hear from Canadians who have different points of view.

I also take issue with the Liberals who are somehow trying to claim there is filibustering going on. They want the bill to pass with no discussion, no debate and no vote. That is wrong. We should be debating this because it is a very important bill. There are a number of very important questions raised in the bill that Canadians want to hear about and provide input.

There seems to be a lot of political posturing taking place. In fact, I notice there is a very careful characterization that this is not a bill about the age of consent, but is now a bill about the protection of children, which is a different characterization from how it was originally put forward. Clearly what we are debating is the Criminal Code, whether it is a good idea to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 and what would the consequences be if we do that.

Earlier today our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, spoke to the bill. He laid out some of the concerns the NDP caucus, as well as the fact that if it went to committee, the NDP would seek amendments.

I want to address my remarks and bring forward another side of the debate, which is whether we are willing to hear from young people about their sexual activity, what is consensual and what is not. I am very concerned with the attitude of the government, which is so paternalistic, that young people will be shut out of this debate. If the bill goes to committee, it is incredibly important that we hear from them because we know sexual activity takes place. The average age of 14.1 years for girls and it is slightly different for boys.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

We know sexual activity takes place and it is very important that we hear the views of young people and what they think we should do. The point I want to make is this is now being presented as a bill for protection for children, but there already are protections in the Criminal Code, which ensure that exploitation, coercion and violence against young people do not take place.

The critical thing here is that we must differentiate between what is harmful, exploitative, violent and coercive against what is actually consenting activity. As Osgoode law professor Alan Young has said, this bill can be looked as an example of the sort of symbolic politics that take place where legislation is proposed in order to make people feel good about something. We have seen this now on a number of occasions with bills on crime from the government, but they do not necessarily accomplish any change in terms of what will take place. This bill may have a negative impact.

The Canadian AIDS Society said in its position statement:

[We are] concerned that increasing the age of consent could result in young people being more secretive about their sexual practices and not seeking out the information they need.

It also stated that:

The Criminal Code of Canada already protects people under the age of 18 from sexual relationships that happen under circumstances of exploitation, pornography, prostitution or in relationships of trust, authority or dependency.

Let us be very clear. These protections already exist within our Criminal Code. Again I come back to the need for us to be incredibly cautious in hearing from young people about what they believe the impact of this bill would be on their lives and on the realities they face.

The Canadian AIDS Society believes that the Canadian government should be focusing on promoting consistent and comprehensive HIV-AIDS information in sexual health education across Canada. It said that the best way to protect and support youth is to ensure that education and services are available to inform them about their rights and options, and the risks and benefits of engaging in sexual activity. Educating youth to make informed choices that are right for them is better addressed through parental guidance and comprehensive sexual health education than by using the Criminal Code.

We have a similar position being put forward by the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health. It said that there was no evidence that increased restriction on individual rights would increase protection of youth from sexual exploitation or provide any other benefits sufficient to justify the intrusion into personal privacy and consensual activity. Rather, the prospect of legal sanction and third party disclosure could seriously discourage youth from assessing preventative and therapeutic health services and other forms of information and assistance. My colleague brought up this point earlier today.

We will be seeking amendments to this bill in committee in terms of the differentiation that now exists in the Criminal Code around anal intercourse as opposed to other sexual activities that we think are discriminatory. That should be changed. We need to ensure as well that there is protection for young people when they need to report sexually transmitted diseases.

I want to put on the record that this is an important debate. I have a lot of reservations about this bill and I do not support it in principle. I do think it is important for witnesses to be heard, particularly young people because we need to hear their point of view. We need to be realistic in what we do. We would be willing to look at the provisions that actually exist now in the Criminal Code and focus the debate on whether or not those provisions are inadequate. We need to focus on what to do to ensure there is no exploitation, coercion or violence against young people because those protections are already in the Criminal Code.

I look forward to that debate. I hope it is a genuine debate and not just about political posturing. Canadians want us to honestly and frankly discuss this issue. Maybe at some point there will be a consensus. It is important that all points of view be heard.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how these narratives roll out. One of them, certainly, from the Conservatives that we have heard many times is that the NDP just wants to spend more, more, more.

Actually, if we did an audit of NDP governments across the country, we would see that they have the strongest record overall of balanced budgets and dealing with debt.

We have this narrative and the Conservatives cling to it in desperation, but in actual fact the record is very different in terms of fiscal management for the NDP. It is a very good record.

In terms of the other questions that the member put, if we look at this budget, we have to make an assessment overall who were the winners and who were the losers. I would say that ordinary Canadians were the losers. Despite the few little bits and pieces that they might have received overall, they lost out.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this idea that tough decisions were made by the Liberals back in the early nineties and that we all had to tighten our belts is a fabrication. The record shows that Canadians who paid for those decisions were the poorest of Canadians, the most vulnerable. They were hit the hardest.

Let us not forget that it was the previous Liberal government that gave $100 billion in corporate tax cuts when it was in power. Let us get the message straight.

In terms of the question about how we face resource workers or people in the lumber industry, we do not face them, we stand with them in solidarity. We represent those workers and their interests by pointing out how terrible the softwood lumber agreement is. We demand of the previous government and of this government that we support those communities that have been hit by that agreement. We have done that consistently in this House because we stand with those workers and we will continue to do that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2, October 27th, 2006]

No, we will not have the taxpayers pay for it, they can pay for it out of the Liberal Party.

In regard to this budget, the NDP voted against the Conservative budget. We think it was a very poor budget. It was a missed opportunity particularly now that we know there was a $13 billion surplus that could have provided a major reinvestment into some critical programs in Canada that would help Canadians in their daily lives.

I represent Vancouver East. I represent a very low income community. A few days ago squatters moved into a low income housing building in the downtown east side. Hundreds of people have been evicted from what we call single room occupancies in that community. Why is that happening? It is because we have not had a federal housing strategy.

Even though the NDP fought so hard and actually did get money into the last federal budget, Bill C-48, that money has actually not been transferred through to the people who really need it. The same is true for post-secondary education.

When we look at this Conservative budget, we have to ask a very important question, who gains and who loses? Who wins with this budget? We know that the Conservative government has a multi-year plan for corporate tax cuts. Clearly, there are some winners there, but there is no multi-year commitment for child care, education, training, the environment or housing.

I see people in my community who are really hurting and have a tough time getting by day by day. They are literally destitute on the streets. They get whammed by Gordon Campbell on the one hand because it is now almost impossible to qualify for basic income assistance. They get hit over the head with that or if they are able to get on income assistance, a single person lives on $500 a month, and I defy anybody to try and make it on that.

They get hit on that side, but then they get hit on the federal side as well because we have seen an abandonment of a federal responsibility for the provision of housing. I have to say to be clear on the record, it began with the Liberals back in 1993 when the member for LaSalle—Émard was finance minister. He trashed Canada's wonderful social housing programs, trashed the co-op housing programs, and there was no more federal funding. Then we began this horrible downward spiral of more and more people being caught in the travesty of losing their homes, not being able to rent affordable homes or apartments because none were available and the housing squeeze was on.

That has now taken place for more than a decade and we are seeing the consequences of that deliberate public policy brought on by 13 years of Liberal government and now continued on by a Conservative government. We see the impact on our streets. I see that every day in my community and it breaks my heart when I see people who are valiantly struggling to keep going. Yet, here in Ottawa, these mammoth decisions are being made that basically cut millions of people out of the picture and say they do not count, they are not important.

This summer we had a serious situation. We were very concerned that the SCPI program, the funds that it earmarked for emergency housing were about to be lost. Our very wonderful housing critic went to work. She drew this to the attention of the public and we actually had the federal minister for HRSD, who is responsible for housing, to make comments in the media that those funds were secure.

We found last week on the Treasury Board website that there are incredibly significant cuts to the SCPI program, something like 98% of the funds look as though they are gone in the next fiscal year despite what the President of Treasury Board said in the House, that SCPI would continue.

I get phone calls and emails continually from people who rely on those funds in the absence of a national housing program. They rely on those emergency funds to provide very basic frontline services, emergency provisions and shelter services. Winter is coming upon us. The out of the cold program will yet again be in jeopardy because of the lack of certainty and security about that program. We are very worried about that. This is real stuff that hits people.

I know that other members of the House have raised other questions. Part of the cuts that we just saw recently was to the very popular summer student career program. In my community, not only is it a very good vehicle for ensuring that students can have good jobs during the summer to gain experience, to help them make a little bit of money for tuition, but it is also a very valuable program for local organizations.

In my riding groups like Safe Kids, the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, and the Strathcona Community Centre rely on the summer student career program to provide very important children's programs during the summer. These are often children who are at risk. Their parents are at work. They are young children. Child care is not accessible or after school care is very expensive, again because the government has not bothered to put in a national child care program.

Programs like Safe Kids, that are supported through the summer student career program, are now again in jeopardy because we understand from the Treasury Board cuts that they are being re-engineered. In fact, the minister said in the House that the money was going to corporations that will hire people anyway and so the government will retarget it.

In a place like east Vancouver where we depend upon these jobs to help young people and kids who are at risk, we need to know that the money is going to be there. Even the money we had was totally inadequate and I was always going to the government to ask if there were additional funds and saying that we wanted to see them in our community. It is money that is being very well spent. It goes directly to support students and it helps the local community.

It really causes me a lot of dismay to see these kinds of cuts take place. It is the same with the Status of Women. We see that the mandate of the Status of Women department has changed. It no longer uses the word equality. Lobbying and being an advocate is no longer allowed. Come on, what will be left? There will be nothing left to women's equality

It seems to me that if the government, as it claims, was interested in efficiencies, as it says, that is fine. It should find those efficiencies, but then re-invest the funds into the programs that need them. That would be sound fiscal management and sound public policy. What it chose to do instead was announce the cuts under the cover of efficiency and basically hurt the most vulnerable people in our society.

For those reasons and for many more, we are not supporting the budget. We believe in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. We believe in paying down the debt but also re-investing in basic essentials that produce a quality of life for Canadians that I think people value, expect and see as very important in the country.

Unfortunately, the government has taken us down a different path, one that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, and leaves behind the most vulnerable in our society. We do not support the budget for that reason.