Libby Davies

[Tragic Events, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow New Democrats and our leader Jack Layton, I wish to express our deepest sympathy to the families, loved ones and friends of the seven young Canadians who died so tragically in Glacier National Park on Saturday.

As young students, they exemplified a love of life and its challenges through their school, their sports and their community.

The loss suffered by family members, friends and classmates at Strathcona-Tweedsmuir school is difficult and painful. We join with all members of the House in not only expressing our sorrow, but also hope for what these young Canadians represented.

I also want to express our shock and pain, shared by all people at the catastrophic accident of the Columbia space shuttle and the loss of life by seven men and women who gave their lives for the ongoing quest for understanding our human place in this universe.

We respectfully offer our deepest sympathy to their families, to the people of the United States, Israel and India. We honour their memory and the memory of the young Canadians at Glacier National Park.

Columbia

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it makes us wonder what happened to that Canadian tradition.

Why will the Canadian government not disclose what Canada's involvement was in discussions this week on the star wars missile defence system? Why are we allowing Canada to become complicit in this rampant militarism and escalation of weapons development? Why was this Parliament not consulted before Canada held secret talks on star wars?

[Foreign Affairs, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, weapons of mass destruction in anyone's hands are dangerous and must be disarmed. No one should be exempt, including George W. Bush. All nations must honour international treaties that would control such weapons. Surely we should be following our own rules. Surely we should be telling George Bush to follow these rules too.

What is Canada doing now to abolish weapons of mass destruction around the globe, including in our own backyard?

[Iraq, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, from the debate last night that we heard in this House, it is very clear that the government is hedging its bets.

I believe that Canadians want to see leadership on this question. Why is there not an aggressive campaign for peace? I urge the Prime Minister to listen to his own words, not the official opposition. He said in 1991, “Why this war? What are our national interests in this war?”

Let us begin by having a democratic vote in this House. Never mind all the talk about formulas and what the history was, we want a democratic vote in this House. That is why we are here and that is what Canadians expect us to do. What is the government afraid of?

[Iraq, January 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, “there is anxiety in the Canadian people today...They do not know exactly what is going on”. Those are not my words, although I agree with them. They came from the Prime Minister in 1991 when he was speaking about the gulf war. He said then that it was embarrassing for Canada not to have a position.

It is more than embarrassing now. It is shameful that Canada is hedging its bets on a war on Iraq. There is a choice here. Will the Prime Minister say that it is wrong to invade Iraq and Canada will have no part of it?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not have any doubt that Canadians will be shocked to hear the position that the Canadian Alliance has laid out tonight. It is a total disrespect for the United Nations and the fact that a second resolution is not needed, a disrespect for international law, and a disrespect for Canadian sentiment on this issue. He can disregard polls or householders, but I can tell him that across the country there is a strong feeling that people do not want to see this country go to war.

On what basis does the member justify a violation of international law just so we can stand with the Americans in a unilateral action?

[Homelessness, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, why is that after three years and $300 million to solve homelessness we still have a national disaster and no social housing? Why is it that a baby is born on cold concrete steps in the middle of winter because there is no safe housing for women and kids? Why is it that life on minimum wage means poverty and despair?

Quality of life and human dignity used to mean something in this country. Why have the Liberals abandoned this? What does the Prime Minister say to these Canadians who are still out in the cold, still homeless and still poor?

[Question No. 42, January 27th, 2003]

With regard to the allocation of funds for immigrant integration services: ( a ) how is funding for these services determined; ( b ) why has funding remained static; ( c ) how much increased revenue has the government received from landing fees because of an increase in admission of immigrants; and ( d ) if funding is not based on a per landing status basis, why isn't it?

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I know she has done lots of work as the chair of the Liberal task force on urban affairs. I am glad to hear her talk about the need for a permanent affordable housing program in this country. I am glad to hear her speak about the need for infrastructure funding for our municipalities and for public transit funding.

The concern I have is that, although I have heard this many times before from the task force, from individual government members and even from ministers, it never translates into the kind of funding stability on which our municipalities can rely.

One of the problems is that there is no minister who is actually responsible for urban affairs. It is scattered all over the place, partly through infrastructure, through crown corporations, through housing and so on. If this is seen as an issue where the federal government needs to take leadership in working with the provinces to provide the funds, then it seems to me that there needs to be a minister who has clear responsibility and a mandate for urban affairs, because 80% of Canadians live in the urban environment.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on whether she would agree with that and whether she would agree with funding for public transit. One of the things that is really an outrage is the amount of money that the federal government takes out of gasoline taxes and does not put back into funding public transit. In my own city of Vancouver we have had terrible problems with financing public transit because so much money is going out in gasoline tax and is not coming back into the local community. I wonder if the member would comment on those two things.

[Prebudget Consultations, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's comments and I would like to pose two questions.

First, I listened to his comments about the Romanow commission and the fact that the member had worked with his constituents and had feedback. It seems to me that in this report Mr. Romanow came to two very critical conclusions. One is that there must be public financing for health care services in Canada, and the second is that there must be public delivery. I think this is something that Canadians are very concerned about. There are issues around the length of time that it takes to go through diagnostic services and so on, but I think Mr. Romanow provided a blueprint and really strengthened the values that are there. Would the member agree that the public delivery of health care services is something that is very important in stopping this creeping privatization?

Second, in terms of defence spending and the report he refers to, which I believe is the one from the Polaris Institute that came out yesterday, he may be disappointed because it dares to go against the general prevailing view of just throwing more money at defence. I think that what the report said, and I will add that the author, Steven Staples, is a very credible person, is that Canada's defence policy is still rooted in the cold war and that we have made all kinds of expenditures like, for example, $750 million on a bunch of used subs, that really do not serve us today in terms of Canada's contemporary needs around defence.

It seems to me that this report is actually providing a very important perspective that we do not hear very often, because there is a very strong mainstream view from the defence department, from the Liberal government, and from retired generals and so on who simply want to put more money into defence. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that it has more to do with priorities for where that money goes.