Libby Davies

[Taxation, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is absolute rubbish. As a direct result of his policies, there are 1.139 million children living in poverty today.

Some 4,885 days ago, that minister voted in favour of eliminating poverty when he supported Ed Broadbent's motion, but for 3,443 of those days, while kids lived and died in poverty, he was in cabinet bragging and smirking about his tax cuts. On the 3,444th day, he said it is time to end poverty.

Here is the test. Will he delay his capital gains--

[Taxation, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is the minister who for nine years has been one of cabinet's biggest cheerleaders for massive tax cuts, who brags to the Alliance that the Liberals spend $100 billion on tax cuts, in his words “the largest tax reduction package in history”, and who cut capital gains taxes in his budget while single mothers in poverty got their child tax benefits clawed back.

Yesterday he said that we must “galvanize the national will around ending child poverty”. How did he say that with a straight face?

[Community Activity Support Fund, April 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean and tell him that we had a brief discussion about his motion this morning in our meeting, and it produced an instant reaction from members of our NDP caucus. Some were strongly in favour of his motion and thought it was a fabulous and very creative idea. They wanted to seize the opportunity to act on it. Other members, though, I have to say, had a different reaction and saw it as one big headache.

He has suggested that in this debate we should talk about the principle and I think that is a good idea. We could look at how such a program would be implemented and think of all kinds of criticisms or benefits, but to look at the principle is important.

Right now a lot of groups in my community in East Vancouver are facing some of the most difficult situations that they have ever faced. They are facing massive cutbacks by the provincial government, particularly as they relate to social advocacy programs, community services for people with disabilities and people who live below the poverty line, and single parents.

My community has faced massive cutbacks, and those cutbacks hit the people who are on low incomes and depend on the services of community organizations and advocacy groups. I am sure this is also true in places like Alberta and Ontario where there have also been massive cutbacks. These people have really been feeling the crunch.

Every month or so in my community we put out a bulletin of funding sources for organizations, because people are desperate to know about government funding sources at any level or in private foundations or other kinds of trusts. This has been a very popular resource that we have produced, because groups want to know where they can find a few dollars, or $5,000 or $10,000, or just a couple of thousand to keep them going. I know there is a very great need for this because of government cutbacks. We have certainly experienced it at the federal level. This has produced a massive social deficit in this country.

The member has put forward the idea of establishing a fund whereby a member of Parliament would include in his or her duties the idea of looking at organizations and their various priorities and needs, and the idea has a lot of merit. On a personal level, I think in principle this motion is something that should be considered.

I know that some of my colleagues had concerns about whether or not it would set up a situation whereby it would take a lot of time to deal with what might be quite a small amount of money. They are also concerned about whether or not it would create a situation where we would be inundated with requests.

I was reminded of that with the Queen's Jubilee Medal. I do not know what other members experienced, but in my community a process was set up that was at arm's length. Community representatives decided who would get the medals. We made decisions that were representative and diverse. The people who were chosen were very well deserving, but I was amazed at the feedback I received from people who were really ticked off and very upset because they did not get a medal. I am sure other members had that same experience. I think it was that kind of example some of my colleagues had in mind.

One of the government members raised the issue of partisanship and accountability. I want to focus on that. If that is one of the reasons why this motion would be shot down, I have to say that if we want to look at anything that is partisan we need look no further than federal programs. We have seen the most gross examples of partisanship in some of the federal programs. I think that at a local level we would probably see more transparency and more accountability because we are more visible in the local community.

In terms of accountability if there were such a fund, I think that where those funds go would be very much scrutinized in that riding or in a local community. It would be very difficult for a member to be either highly partisan or dispensing funds in a way that was somehow unbalanced or really without a sense of accountability. I think the community itself would begin to speak out. I do think that in many ways the benefits that would be derived in a local community would outweigh some of the problems that a member might encounter.

It would be a matter of setting up an open and transparent process with criteria. I would not want to see a fund that could just be handed out to one's friends with no criteria and no goals or objectives. I think if that were done, there would then be much more accountability than we have ever seen from any of the massive funds we have seen doled out to various Liberal cronies and funds.

If such a fund did exist, I think in many respects it would really help organizations in terms of seed money. Sometimes a group, while it is trying to secure other levels of government funding, needs funding that is more for transition purposes. Sometimes a very small amount of money can produce a lot of benefit for that organization and the service it provides.

In fact, one of the examples I wish to provide is that of the former member of Parliament for Vancouver East, Margaret Mitchell. I know that many members of the House know and respect her. She was a member from 1979 to 1993. She actually used one of her member's increases, put it in a trust fund and created the Margaret Mitchell Fund for Women in East Vancouver. Then she actually contributed other funds. It is now managed by VanCity Savings community foundation. It has been an incredibly important fund in my community. It actually came from the member of Parliament as her own donation. It has grown to the extent where it is now used as very important seed money, for emergency money for local organizations that actually are working with women in East Vancouver in terms of equality issues, anti-poverty issues, justice issues and so on.

That is one example of what a fund like that has been able to do. It is actually already in existence because of a former member of Parliament who set a great example of what she was willing to do to help her community even after she retired as the member of Parliament.

The motion will go to a vote. It is private members' business and it has been a very good debate. I think the member will see that members of our caucus have varying points of view. Maybe there is a good opportunity to convince people here. I know there are concerns about the motion. Some people think it will just be a can of worms, something they do not want to get into. I think there are others of us who think that the principle of what would be established is something that is very worthy of consideration.

I thank the member for bringing forward motion forward. I think it is actually a really good debate to have. It is interesting to hear the different points of view.

[Housing, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the housing agreement promised thousands of affordable housing units, yet 18 months later in Ontario zero units have been built and B.C. has cut provincial housing funds. Canadians will not get housed on cuts and fake promises. They need dollars, political will and enforcement of the agreement.

At the housing ministers meeting next week, will the minister use the accountability mechanism or is he saying that housing is just another empty Liberal promise and sit and watch Ontario demolish the agreement?

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—St. Clair.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the motion. The first thing I would like to do is raise the question as to why we are debating this motion today. Like many Canadians, I have been watching TV and seeing the images of the war on Iraq, and seeing the images of the U.S. tanks rolling into the city of Baghdad. I think many people see the end in sight. Hopefully that will happen soon and we will not see more casualties.

However it raises an interesting question as to why the government decided to bring in this motion today reaffirming its decision of September 20 not to participate in the military intervention in Iraq and the other aspects of the motion.

I think the motion is a reactive motion. It is a motion that has come about as a result of the politics and the political debate that is taking place. It is in reaction to the official opposition motion that we debated last Thursday in the House.

It is a very sad statement that we are debating this motion when what we needed to see was a motion put before the House weeks and weeks ago, even before a war started, that would have clearly laid out, in a principled, clear and unequivocal way, the government's position in terms of a possible war at that time on Iraq.

I am very disappointed that we are debating a motion that is almost after the fact. It seems to me that it is a very classical Liberal motion. It is one that tries to cover everything all ways. It tries to cover both sides of the fence, so to speak, for the Liberals who want to have it all ways. When we read through the motion, it is characterized very much in that way.

As members know from the debate today, the NDP is not in support of the motion. We think the motion is very problematic and contradictory. It does not spell out in clear terms what the government is trying to accomplish. In fact, even the very first clause, which talks about a reaffirmation of the government's decision to not participate in the military intervention in Iraq, is hugely contradictory. As we know, from what we have seen every day during question period, during other debates that have taken place and through the debate that takes place in the media, the government's position has been very contradictory.

On the one hand, we hear from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and from the defence minister that Canada is not involved, and yet every day there is evidence and information that shows us that Canadian troops and Canadian personnel are participating in the gulf. They are on the ground, in the air and part of the AWACS that is participating in the targeting of bombing that is taking place. There has been information on what daughter is being sent to the 5th fleet. To say that the House is reaffirming a decision not to participate is simply not correct. All of the evidence shows us that the Government of Canada is participating in Bush's war on Iraq.

The other problem we have with the motion has to do with the fourth clause which states:

our hope that the U.S.-led coalition accomplishes its mission as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties;

That does not accurately describe what is taking place. On the one hand, the Canadian government is saying that we will not participate but, on the other hand, the Prime Minister and other representatives of the government are refusing to stand up and clearly articulate that this war is illegal under international law.

I remember the Minister of Foreign Affairs saying to the House that Canada respects the sovereign decision of the U.S. to go ahead with its invasion of Iraq. It seems to me that the very point of international law and the reason we raise the question of international law is that international law prevents states from making sovereign decisions that are illegal.

The particular clause I quoted, which talks about our hope that the U.S. coalition accomplishes its mission, is hypocritical because that mission, as we know, has to do with a regime change in Iraq. That has been clearly stated by the President of the United States.

Again we have very contradictory messages. We hear the Prime Minister saying that we do not support intervention for the purpose of a regime change and yet we have seen the involvement of 1,300 Canadian troops and personnel in an effort that is very much about a regime change in Iraq.

I think the best way we could have avoided casualties would have been to give a very clear signal that the United Nations weapons inspection process should have been given a chance to work. Somehow we have lost sight of the work in which the UN was engaged, which was about verification and accountability in the international community. This has been lost in this agenda. It has suddenly changed from weapons of mass destruction, which, by the way, were not found, to becoming a regime change.

We in the NDP have been consistent in our views on this. We are opposed to the mission that has been led by the U.S. It is a violation of international law and it is outside of the United Nations, and that allegedly the government also had serious questions with.

Another part of the government's motion that we have a lot of problems with in terms of the way it is characterized is the next part of the motion that reads:

the importance of self restraint on the part of all Members of the House in their comments on the war in Iraq while our American friends are in battle;

Presumably that part of the motion deals with what is being termed as anti-Americanism. However I think if we were to look at the debate that has taken place in the House, we would see that the government itself has ben playing into the whole idea of anti-Americanism to defend its position.

Yesterday during question period I asked the defence minister to clearly articulate Canada's position in terms of armed forces personnel being in the Persian Gulf. His response to me yesterday was:

--this perpetual NDP complaining, anti-Americanism does get on one's nerves after awhile.

That was the minister himself saying that, playing into and fostering this idea of anti-Americanism, when in actual fact the question had clearly been directed at the government in terms of calling on the government to clearly outline its position in terms of our troops and personnel in the area.

It was interesting to see that shortly after question period the defence minister was asked by the media in a scrum to cite the case of NDP anti-Americanism. The minister could not come up with anything except to say “Use your imagination”. Clearly he does not have any factual basis nor does he have any imagination.

I wanted to reference that particular point because I find it very frustrating that the government urges members to be restrained in the House but it uses the argument and defence of other people being anti-American to somehow defend its own position.

I think that within the international community, and Canada as a sovereign nation, we have the right and in fact the responsibility to be critical of policies, whether they be American or British. However to simply characterize that as being anti-American is an insult to the kind of debate that we need to have over international policy and law around war. We really take offence to that.

The last point I want to make concerns Canada's commitment to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. We again have the same kind of doublespeak from the Liberal motion here. There is no mention of the United Nations. Even Tony Blair has said that he believes it is important for the United Nations to have a role. Why is the Government of Canada not being clear on its position?

We have seen George Bush undermine the United Nations. This would be an opportunity for Canada to clearly say that the role of the United Nations should be affirmed.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we can see that this debate will go on for quite a while.

First of all, I never gave my permission and there are many members here who never gave their permission either. Second, even if I did or anyone else did, it is something that can be used as a precedent because it is on the record, it happened. Therefore, I do not accept the member's arguments. In fact, if anything, it reinforces the arguments that are coming from this side of the House, that what the government is about to do is clearly wrong.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate that this whole affair has been poorly managed by the government. It had difficulties with its own members on how to deal with this and that is why it sent the bill off in that form to the Senate in the first place. It is now caving into the Senate.

I agree with the member that we can say what we want, but what we do is what counts here or anywhere else in life. We know that as parents and we know that in school. We can lay down various principles and say it is this or this or it is not a precedent, but what we actually do counts for something. That becomes part of the record and that is what is taking place here.

The government did not handle this issue in a proper way. It created a situation around it. Now, it does not know how to deal with that situation, so it is allowing the Senate to go ahead and override what amounts to the privileges of the House. The government acknowledges that because it is waiving it and that is clearly wrong.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's point and that is precisely why we are opposed to the government's manoeuvre on the issue of accepting what the Senate put forward. The government is completely wrong. The onus is on the government to uphold the practices of this place. For it to roll over and say this is okay and not do anything to stop it should not be tolerated at all.

We should challenge what the Senate has done. It is pretty outrageous that an unelected body is prepared to do this. It is even worse that the government is now apparently going to allow this to go through. It is like six of one and half a dozen of the other. At this point the ball is in the government's court. It could decide not to allow this to happen. The government has the history of this place on its side. As the opposition motions states, it could send a message back to the Senate disallowing this. That is the correct course of action. That would be the right thing to do, but the government has chosen to cave in on this.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question raises an interesting point in terms of what it is we do objectively to guard and honour the rules and traditions of this place.

We could argue that if the Senate wanted to do something it would push the envelope and see what it could get away with. The member is right when he said that there is a sense in this place that we are the guardians of those kinds of practices. It would be a grave mistake on the part of the House to adopt the suggestion from the government that we roll over and go along with whatever the Senate says and not worry because it would not set a precedent. It is our responsibility.

In terms of the points of order that have been put forward we can see what may take place in terms of voting. It is up to all of us to consider whatever procedural means to prevent it from happening. The government seems to have no qualms whatsoever regarding this. It is quite prepared for this to go ahead and allow this to take place on the basis that it would not set a precedent when in reality we know it would. From that point of view, as members of the opposition we must work as hard as we can to prevent this from happening.

We represent something broader. We represent a democratic institution. When we come here, we come with a sense of the history and the purpose of what this place represents. From that point of view, we should stand firm and not allow the Senate to usurp the practices, and the rules and traditions of the House of Commons.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting, in fact riveting, to hear the debate over the last 45 minutes. I have been trying to learn what these procedures are all about. In terms of Canadians who might be listening to this debate, scratching their heads and wondering why we are going at it and why members of the opposition are so adamantly opposed to the amendments in the bill before us, it needs to be explained.

Although we have made our points of order and we will await the Speaker's ruling, in terms of getting on with the debate on Bill C-10, it is pertinent and still relevant to talk about the concerns we have about arriving at this point and how it is that we are dealing with this bill. Basically it comes down to this. It is very difficult to accept that the Senate, which is unelected and unaccountable, somehow has the right to take a bill from the House, split it up however it wants, and send it back saying, “This is how we want it dealt with”. That is the essence of the problem here and why we had all of the points of order.

I do want to say very clearly that from the point of view of the NDP, in terms of the actual substance of the two parts of the bill, originally we basically concurred with the contents of the bills. In fact it was because the government could not get its act together, because it had so much opposition within its own ranks, that it started resorting to various mechanisms and procedures to deal with it.

What we want to focus on today is the fact that we are vehemently opposed to the motion that is before us from the government which states:

That, in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, this House concur with the Senate's division of the bill into two parts, namely, Bill C-10A...and Bill C-10B--

The government amendment goes on to say that while disapproving of any infringements of its rights and privileges by the other house, i.e. the Senate, in this case it waives its claim to insist upon such rights and privileges, but the waiver of said rights and privileges is not to be drawn into a precedent.

We take a lot of exception to that. First of all, and I guess this would continue the most recent point of order, I seriously question what right the government has to say that it disapproves on the one hand but will waive the rights and privileges of the House. I do not give any such permission for the government to waive my rights. I think there are quite a few other members here who also would not give any permission or sanction for that to happen. To set that forward and to say on the one hand that somehow this is to be disapproved of but then to allow it to happen and to say that it will not be drawn into a precedent, really defies any kind of notion of common sense in terms of what logic and what consequences are now going to follow.

I want to say very clearly that we in the NDP on principle will oppose this coming forward from the government. In fact we will be supporting the amendment made by the member for Selkirk--Interlake and seconded by the member for Souris--Moose Mountain. The amendment makes it clear that we do not support the division of the bill and that in fact it is the view of the House that the alteration of Bill C-10 by the Senate is an infringement upon the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and that therefore it should be sent back and the Senate consider bringing it back in an undivided form. That is the correct thing to do.

We are most concerned about the precedent that would be set here because the creation of two new bills does amount to an infringement on the rights of the House.

We have to look at this in context because regardless of the motivation for doing this, there is also a strong feeling from opposition members, and certainly from the NDP, that we do not support the idea of omnibus bills, putting everything under one cover and trying to get it through. Whatever the motivation of the Senate might have been in terms of a technical issue in splitting what was originally an omnibus bill, there is no way we will go along with the idea that it has the right to split a bill that would infringe upon the House.

It was mentioned earlier that there is a precedent. A situation did take place in 1988 with Bill C-103, which was a bill to establish Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. It was an act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada and establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and so on. It was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate split the bill and sent one part back to the House.

In 1988 Speaker Fraser ruled that the privileges of the House had been breached. Not having the power to enforce his decision, the Speaker asked the House to claim its privilege by sending a message back to the Senate. The House did indeed debate a motion to that effect which was moved by the then minister of state for the Treasury Board, Mr. Doug Lewis. The motion said that in the opinion of the House, the Senate had contravened Standing Order 87 and infringed its privileges. The motion asked that the Senate return Bill C-103 in an undivided form.

The motion from the House of Commons was agreed to. On August 18 a message was received from the Senate informing the House that Bill C-103 had been passed without amendment. The bill went on to receive royal assent later that day.

In actual fact we do have a precedent where something was sent back to the Senate with a strong message from this House which made it clear that the practice of dividing a bill was completely unacceptable. In that particular case the Senate did the right thing and sent the bill back in the correct form.

This is absolutely what we should be doing today. While we could spend a lot of time debating the actual substance of the bill, what really takes precedence here is the fact that the Senate is trying to foist its will in a manner that is completely undemocratic on a House whose members were elected in a democratic fashion.

We find it particularly worrying that the government is allowing more and more to be undermined in terms of giving a greater legislative role to an unelected body and thereby eroding the democracy in the House of Commons. This is something we should be very concerned about.

We know for sure that the Senate is a place where there is all kinds of patronage appointees. Many influential senators sit on boards of publicly traded corporations. We had a situation recently that even when the senators were doing an examination of bank mergers they tried to limit the ability of a democratically elected House of Commons committee from doing the same.

There is something that really rubs the wrong way here. We are now put in the position of having to deal with something that is not of our creation in the House of Commons. It is being put on us by the other place in a fashion that, in my opinion and I think a lot of other people would agree, would set a precedent. It becomes something that kind of creeps along, and is something that should be very worrying.

As I pointed out in the point of order about an hour ago, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona way back in December of last year immediately saw what it was that was going on here. He rose on a point of order in effect as an early warning to the Speaker that this was about to take place, but because the actual division of the bill had not formally happened in the Senate, the Speaker chose not to deal with it.

I urge members to think about the issue. We are coming down to the bottom line of having to vote on the motion before us. If we are true to the traditions of the House, if we uphold the notion that there are separate responsibilities vis-à-vis the Senate and the House of Commons, if we uphold the traditions that the power to deal with legislation rests in this place and that we should in no way be allowing unelected people down the hallway in the Senate to dictate what will take place in the House, even if we do it through some kind of motion that says we waive our rights and responsibilities and this is not going to create any sort of precedent, who is kidding themselves on that?

If that happens, it will have been done and it will be used at some point in the future. We will see the continual chipping away of the role and rights of members in this place. We will see a kind of enhanced role and legislative aggressiveness begin to take place in the Senate.

In closing, we will do everything we can to make sure this does not happen. We will not be supporting the government motion. We will be supporting the opposition amendment.

I hope there are members on the other side who can see the writing on the wall about what it is that is taking place here. I hope they will be willing to stand up and to protect the traditions of democratic practice in the House. I hope that they will be willing to stand up and challenge what it is that is taking place before our eyes and to say that this is not on and that we should not be couching it in terms of not needing to worry about it because there is no precedent. Things have a way of coming back and repeating themselves.

If this does go through, I would not be surprised at all if at some point in the future somebody used it as a reference, that it happened before and can happen again. We must guard against that. I urge members to vote against the government motion and to support the amendment from the opposition because that is clearly the right thing to do in this case.