Libby Davies

[Foreign Affairs, March 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I might add that we are sending his answer to Bono, so I hope he thinks about his reply.

The bill that is supposed to provide affordable drugs to Africa is fatally flawed. It contains the first right of refusal for big drug companies, something that the NGOs and the experts know fatally flaws and undermines the bill. The Prime Minister has been in office for three months, yet this bill is identical to the bad one that was introduced by Jean Chrétien.

If helping Africa is a priority, why has the Prime Minister done nothing to fix this bill and ensure that the people who are suffering get the drugs that they need?

[Points of Order, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that you would find unanimous consent, based on discussions among the House leaders, to put the following motion which is supported by all parties. I move:

That this House condemn in the strongest possible terms the recent anti-Semitic attacks in Toronto on Jewish houses, synagogues and schools, and support the call in the 2002 OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Declaration on anti-Semitic violence for strengthening mechanisms to combat the scourge of anti-Semitism in Canada and globally.

[Privilege, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the same issue. I would like to point out that the member who has just spoken is not a part of our caucus and if there are members of the Conservative Party, who just clapped, who would like to have him sitting over there, we would most definitely welcome that.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one has to admit that we have a bit of a strange situation. On the one hand we have a motion from the official opposition saying that the government has lost the confidence of the House. That usually implies that we would go to an election, yet we heard today, as we have on other days, that the Leader of the Opposition does not want an election. He actually wants to wait until the fall; I saw a quote from him in the paper today. It is a bit strange.

Then we have the government side arguing that there really is a full agenda. I think the member for York Centre made a valiant attempt to put out the agenda, but one has to admit it is pretty thin. Other than what we have dealt with already, what else is there? Nothing else is coming forward.

Our point of view is that we should get into the election and let the Canadian people decide what their confidence is.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Party member is trying to go some distance to differentiate her party from the so-called new Liberal Party, but on many issues there is really no difference at all whether it is like trying to put off a decision on equality for same-sex marriage, or $100 billion in tax cuts or supporting the government on national missile defence. What is the difference in terms of what the so-called new Conservative Party has to offer? It seems to me that the agendas have merged and blended. Therefore, the choice for Canadians from that point of view is not clear at all.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion before us today from the Conservative Party talks about the past decade of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence. The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam earlier took some issue with the member for Windsor—St. Clair, that somehow we were suggesting that all Conservative members along with the Liberal members could fess up, could own up to a long list of corruption. I think he pointed out that he was only seven years old when Mr. Mulroney was prime minister. I do not think there was a suggestion that all Conservative members belonged in that club. I would suggest that if he took the time to read a very good book, On The Take by Stevie Cameron, he would actually see a very interesting list of some of his predecessors.

There is actually a very interesting common thread between the Liberals and the old and the new Conservative Party and the old and the new Liberals. That is the very strong theme of cronyism that they share of having their friends and trading them back and forth and the corporate lobbyists.

I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, but I think he might want to do a little more historical reading to see the fine tradition that he and his party come from.

[Question No. 24, March 22nd, 2004]

What would be the penalty to the government for cancellation of its contract with Lockheed Martin for the conducting of the Canadian census of 2006 by Statistics Canada?

[Question No. 23, March 22nd, 2004]

Do Canada and the United States have a fishing treaty and, if so, what are the relevant details?

[Violence Against Women, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today the Native Women's Association of Canada launched its national campaign “Sisters in Spirit” to raise awareness and to demand action about the tragedy of over 500 aboriginal women who are missing or murdered in Canada.

The exploitation, murder and violence against aboriginal women, sex trade workers, and poor women is increasing at an alarming rate, but the government has failed to act. The 61 missing women in Vancouver's downtown east side, the closure of women's centres, and deepening poverty and violence all point to an ongoing failure of public policy.

The government shows its real intent in the federal budget. So what is it to be, the rhetoric of the debt or the real and desperate need of aboriginal women?

The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21, is a time to express our solidarity for this campaign. Federal New Democrats will not allow these sisters to be forgotten. We will demand accountability from this government and its miserable record that has hurt so many women in Canada.

[Homelessness, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what commitment? The fact is the Liberals abolished the program in 1995. In fact they have only spent 7% of what had actually been committed in previous budgets. Ontario alone is still waiting for 9,800 units.

Why should anyone believe this Prime Minister or this government when they cannot even deliver the housing to which they have committed? How many poor people have to die on the street before this housing is delivered?