Libby Davies

[Child Poverty, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we would never know it was an important issue especially when it is added to the latest reports from Campaign 2000 and the National Council of Welfare who have both come to the same conclusion that it is clearly within federal responsibility.

Why is it that after almost 15 years since Parliament passed a resolution to end child poverty, we still have an average poverty rate of one child in six in this country? Poor families cannot live on Liberal rhetoric and broken promises.

Why has the government failed yet again to deliver on affordable housing, on a decent federal minimum wage, and a long promised national child care program? What is the excuse this time? Why is there no action?

[Health, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join thousands of British Columbians on May Day to send a powerful message to Gordon Campbell and the federal Liberals. Stop the privatization of our public health care and the trampling of workers' rights.

HEU members and thousands of trade unionists who supported them are on the front line to force back Bill 37, the most draconian piece of legislation that slashes wages and privatizes our health care.

Jack Layton and federal New Democrats are taking on the federal Liberals, who are giving Gordon Campbell the green light to push privatization. We stand with our provincial colleagues, leader Carole James, and MLA's Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan. Their tireless work was part of a massive campaign, along with the B.C. Federation of Labour and the community, to push back Gordon Campbell's anti-worker and anti-health care agenda.

The power of people united for the dignity of workers and our public health care system is something that we are proud to be a part of.

[Health, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after seeing the health minister explode the Liberals' favourite wedge issue yesterday, it becomes clearer and clearer that the Liberals and the Conservatives are one and the same when it comes to privatized health care, despite how the minister tries to wiggle out of his position.

However, there is salvation for the Liberals if they want it. They could choose and decide to change the Canada Health Act to prohibit public money financing for private, for profit health services like hospitals, as was suggested by the NDP in 2000. If they are so different from the Conservatives, will the government pass such a change before the election is called?

[Bill C-250, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate passed Bill C-250 by a vote of 59 to 11. This private member's bill was first introduced by the member for Burnaby—Douglas almost 15 years ago to include sexual orientation in the Criminal Code hate propaganda section along with race, colour, religion and ethnic origin.

Too often gay and lesbian people are targeted for violence, hatred and even death as in the tragic case of Aaron Webster. This bill, supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and attorneys general in Canada, is long overdue.

NDP leader Jack Layton and New Democrats join in paying tribute to those who made passage of the bill possible, including the member for Burnaby--Douglas and his staff, Corie Langdon and Dan Fredrick; Inspector Dave Jones; the bill's sponsor in the Senate, Senator Serge Joyal; and members of the House and the Senate who voted for it.

Together we are sending a powerful message that there is no place in our Canada for hatred and violence targeting gay and lesbian people.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House to finish off the debate on Bill C-436, a bill that I have put forward. I appreciate the comments that have been made by members in the House today.

Bill C-436 has a very basic premise, and that is to assist with family reunification in Canada. As the member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out so eloquently, when we talk to Canadians, particularly those in urban centres who have gone through the immigration system and know the frustrations and the flaws that exist within the system and the difficulties they have experienced in trying to bring a family member to Canada, they see Bill C-436 as a way to fix the system. For some members to blame family members for the lack of resources from the Liberal government is quite astounding.

I also was astounded to hear the member for Parkdale--High Park say that the bill would create chaos and violate government policy. Maybe she is not aware but it was actually her own former minister of immigration who first brought forward the idea of once in a lifetime. The minister came to Vancouver and put forward this suggestion which was hugely responded to by the local community. When the minister dropped the idea because she received a lot of pressure from her bureaucrats, I thought it was a terrific idea, which is the reason I brought the bill forward in the House.

The suggestion that somehow this would create chaos in the system is simply not the case. I believe it is really an attempt to scare people about what is taking place here.

The bill has had tremendous support across the country. I met with various groups in Vancouver. I know my colleagues from Winnipeg North Centre and Winnipeg Centre have held meetings in Winnipeg. The member for Windsor—St. Clair held meetings in his community. Meetings have been held in Toronto, Edmonton and other places. The simple proposition of allowing someone, once in a lifetime, to sponsor a family member who otherwise would not qualify has received strong support in the community.

I would argue that at this point Bill C-436 has a lot of merit to go to the next stage, which is to go to committee where it can be debated and we can look at the definition. As it exists now, as has been pointed out, the definition for family class is incredibly restrictive. It does not reflect Canada's cultural diversity, which is why we have such a problem with the system. The idea of examining the bill, looking at the definition of family class and hearing witnesses on that basis, is what this debate is about. It is about ensuring that the bill can go to committee.

I hope that members will support the bill with the idea that it is about family reunification. It is quite tragic that the Liberal government cannot meet its own established target of 1% immigration levels in Canada. We have to blame the government for that because it has not provided the resources to deal with the backlogs. For members to blame family members for that problem is absolutely unacceptable. If we were to go out to any community, I believe people would be quite horrified to hear that.

I thank the members who have supported the bill and who understand its principle. I even thank the former immigration minister who first proposed this idea because it is a good idea and it should be looked at. For those members who just see the bill as something they can shoot down for whatever political reason, that is unfortunate.

I hope that when the bill comes to a vote it will be supported so it can go to committee where it will get the examination that it deserves. We will be able to hear witnesses and maybe agree upon the fundamental principle that reuniting families in Canada is something that all members of the House should support.

[Women Voters, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, “for every eight men in Parliament, there are only two women among them”. That quote is from the great website and campaign called YoungWomenVote.ca, initiated here on Parliament Hill by three interns: Chi Nguyen, Crystal Graber and Cloë Rowbotham. Their goal is to get 20,000 young women to pledge to vote and make their voices heard in the upcoming federal election.

We in the NDP applaud their campaign and the energy with which they approach it. This is long overdue, and this House needs to reflect the women of Canada. It is time to put patriarchal politics to rest and close the gap that has seen women so under-represented.

We are proud that in our party affirmative action and equality for women are key priorities of our leader, Jack Layton. We are determined to change the face of politics. It is critical to empower young women to engage in the political process to strengthen democratic and equality seeking goals.

YoungWomenVote.ca is a great initiative. We know they will achieve their goals.

[Employment Insurance, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals pride themselves on whisking away $50 billion in EI surpluses but laid off workers cannot pay their rents on a failed program and empty Liberal promises that we have heard today.

Hundreds of workers in B.C. have been laid off as a result of the avian flu but still there is no action and no word from the government to even waive EI so that workers can get the help that they need immediately.

Why has the minister refused to take action so at least the workers can get the money they are entitled to under EI? Why will they not take that action?

[Petitions, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a petition signed by close to 700 residents of Toronto who are very concerned about the housing crisis there. They call upon Parliament to adopt the 1% solution put forward by the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee to eliminate the national disaster of homelessness in Canada.

[Housing Bill of Rights, March 31st, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-509, an act to provide for secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, because I know he has been a very strong advocate for housing rights in the country and in his riding.

I am very proud to present the bill today because it is a bill about respecting the dignity and worth of all people in Canada by protecting their human rights; for the provision of secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing and security in its enjoyment.

The bill would ensure that housing reflects the needs of local communities, including aboriginal communities; that people are not paying more than 30% of their income for rent; that there is appropriate housing for different needs and provides reasonable design options, including access for the elderly and the disabled; and that there is adequate housing for people who are homeless, as specified in a section of the bill.

I thank all the groups that assisted in my bringing the bill to light in the House. It has strong support across the country.

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

[National Defence, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the government and the Prime Minister are completely off track. If he knows anything about star wars, he knows that there are plans already to put 304 interceptors in place. The company behind that is Lockheed Martin, which is doing our census.

Does the Prime Minister think that the former prime minister did the right thing in giving our census to Lockheed Martin, the largest munitions company in the world? If that were the wrong decision, is he willing to cancel that contract and bring it back to Canada?