Libby Davies

[Social Housing, May 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the National Housing and Homelessness Network report card graphically shows that the government's supposed housing program is in a complete mess. In fact, only Quebec has met its commitment.

The government has failed to respond to the ongoing crisis in Toronto by opening up the Fort York armoury, and in Vancouver today aboriginal groups are protesting the withholding of funds for desperately needed shelters.

I ask the minister responsible for housing, will he put some guts into the housing agreement, get the armoury open and deliver on the promise for affordable housing in every part of Canada?

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle for his very powerful comments about what really is a sense of betrayal on the part of people who live in rural Canada about what has happened in terms of the demise of federal programs. The irony is that it is not as though the government has somehow shifted all of its supports and resources into urban Canada, because the same picture emerges there.

I also was glad that the member referred to the situation with EI because I know that in small rural communities people are particularly hard hit by changes to EI. One of the most shocking revelations in research done by the Canadian Labour Congress is that two-thirds of the EI surplus, the $40 billion the member spoke about, actually came from people who made less than $20,000 a year. We are talking about part time workers.

In reference to the softwood lumber fiasco and how that will hit rural communities, I would ask the hon. member if he could comment further on what we need to do to provide support and assistance to the workers and those small rural communities that are hit, for sure in British Columbia where I am from, but also across the country.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

It is a nightmare, not a vision.

[Health, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Vancouver city council voted unanimously to support harm reducing and lifesaving measures to respond to the public health emergency in Vancouver's downtown east side. This is despite the efforts of the ideas conference to drag us into the dark ages. What we need now is a clear indication that Health Canada and the government are willing to support and implement safe injection sites so more lives are not lost.

How long does this community have to wait for the government to do the right thing and bring in safe injection sites and a comprehensive plan? When will it do that?

[Softwood Lumber, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is as clear as mud. We want to know what on earth the government's game plan is? The trade minister has a lot of gall saying that there are no direct job losses. I would like to take that minister and other ministers into some of these coastal communities where they have already suffered 15,000 job losses and up to 50,000 overall.

What is the government's game plan? Is this government bankrupt in ideas? What about affordable housing? Let us use our own lumber. Even the Liberal urban task force is talking about this. Exactly what is the government's plan to protect--

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak as another New Democrat in opposition to Bill C-55 that is being debated today.

I want to refer to comments made by our transport critic, the hon. member for Churchill. It was yesterday when, in describing the effects and impacts of the bill, she correctly pointed out that the power Bill C-55 confers, contrary to what the government is putting forward to the public, on individual cabinet ministers and the government to exercise in an environment of secrecy is, as she said, under the cloak of national security.

This gets to the core of what the bill is about. We saw a huge outcry from the public regarding the previous bill, Bill C-42, because Canadians understood that the bill had little to do with national security, and it had everything to do with a massive infringement on the civil liberties and rights of Canadians. I can say that those of us in the NDP who have had an opportunity to review this latest version, the second try of the government with its introduction of Bill C-55, have come to the same conclusion.

The bill is being put forward in parliament under the cloak of national security, yet it is a bill that must be examined carefully line by line. When we read it we understand the massive power contained in the bill which can be used by individual ministers, by cabinet and by the federal government. The NDP wants to sent out a warning to alert Canadians that Bill C-55 fundamentally differs very little from the original bill, Bill C-42.

For that reason we are standing in opposition to the bill as it goes through the House and committee. We will be calling upon Canadians to stand and assert their political and civil rights to make it clear that the bill is completely unacceptable.

That is not just the opinion of the New Democratic Party. It is also the opinion of a growing number of people who, in examining the bill, are realizing that its impact on our democratic society is something that we should be terribly concerned about.

I read a news release from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This is a person and an office that was established by parliament to protect the privacy of Canadians, to create and to look at the right balance between the need for government to bring in legislation to protect the public interest and the need to protect individual privacy rights.

Government members in particular should be taking note of what the office of the privacy commissioner had to say. In his press release he zeroed in on one section of the bill, section 4.82. These are the provisions that would allow the RCMP and CSIS unrestricted access to the personal information of all Canadian air travellers on flights within Canada as well as on international routes.

The commissioner's concern was that the provision in the bill would fundamentally take away the important privacy right of Canadians with regard to police and other agents as they go about their day to day lives, including travel. The press release stated:

In Canada, it is well established that individuals do not have to identify themselves to police unless they are being arrested or unless they are carrying out a licensed activity such as driving...Empowering the RCMP to obtain and scan passenger lists in search of anyone subject to an outstanding warrant for any offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more has no apparent connection to the purported anti-terrorism purpose of Bill C-55. It appears, rather, to be a dramatic expansion of privacy-invasive police powers without explanation or justification as to its necessity.

Are government members paying attention to this? Are they hearing what the privacy commissioner had to say? He said the bill would allow officials to go into air traveller lists, but where would it stop? Would we then be looking at train travellers, bus travellers or even someone renting a car?

I felt terribly concerned when I read the privacy commissioner's press release. This person is in office in an official capacity to uphold the privacy rights of Canadians. Bill C-55 would trample on those privacy rights. We must question the government, on what basis is the bill being put forward?

Our transport critic and other members of the House have argued forcefully that the government already has at its disposal any measure of legislation, tools that already exist, to deal with legitimate national security concerns. We must ask why the bill is being brought in? Why has the government not received the message from Canadians, including legal experts, international law experts or civil libertarians? Why has the government not understood that what it is about to do is a complete violation of democratic principles established in this country.

This kind of pervasive, military and police intrusion into civil society is something that is creeping along every day. In my own riding in East Vancouver, in the downtown east side, police are about to install surveillance cameras in public locations to watch what is going on on the streets. The same privacy commissioner has criticized that too as an invasion of privacy.

I see these issues being linked. I see it as my responsibility as one member of parliament along with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to say that we should be terribly concerned about these invasions into the privacy of Canadians.

Even though the government claims that the language in Bill C-55 has been softened there are still very significant provisions that would allow the establishment of military zones when equipment is brought in. It would still allow the potential of vast abuse when international gatherings are being held.

If a foreign leader were to bring in military personnel as we saw during APEC, would it be on that basis that the provisions of the bill could suddenly come into effect? We saw that happen in Vancouver when the president of Indonesia came here. He brought his own folks with him toting guns. Is it on that basis that the provisions of the bill could suddenly come into effect and before we know it a peaceful civil protest could be turned into a military zone, closed down, censored and people arrested?

Those are some of the concerns that the NDP have. We will continue to oppose the bill because we see it as a dangerous bill. It is a violation of our fundamental civil liberties, and an invasion into the privacy of Canadians. Bill C-55 would undermine the democratic foundation that we in the House are elected to protect.

[Tax Credit, May 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the hon. member for Fundy--Royal for bringing forward the motion. It is actually a rare occasion to have a debate in parliament about post-secondary education and why it is so important. I have certainly tried to bring forward this debate and have had motions in the past. It sometimes comes up during the budget debate, but it is rare to actually have a debate on it. We will have three hours of debate on this motion and that is very good.

I have listened very carefully to the debate. I think there are some things we all agree on. There is probably one thing we agree on. Everybody is aware that with respect to the future labour market and how it is evolving it is critical to have post-secondary education. The federal labour department has done a study on this and has predicted that by the year 2004, 72% of all jobs will require three years of post-secondary education. This is one reality that I think we can see and certainly it is one that young people know about.

There is also another reality that is facing young Canadians in particular. We are facing the greatest barriers that I believe we have ever had in this country with respect to accessibility for post-secondary education. One only has to look at the facts. Since 1990-91, tuition has risen 126%, six times faster than the rate of inflation. This is an enormous cost that individual Canadians and families are taking on. From 1990 to 2000, the debt load has quadrupled from $8,000 to $25,000.

No one has really addressed the question of why we have this crisis in post-secondary education. When I listened to the Liberal member who spoke to the motion, I did not know whether to cry or laugh when I heard the excuses and the suggestion that somehow most graduate students are managing their debts quite well. I can assure everyone that most graduate students are reluctant to even leave school because the thought of facing the debt wall they have and graduating into poverty is pretty overwhelming.

The reason we are facing this crisis is that the federal government made a conscious decision to cut $7 billion from federal transfers. As a result, we have real per capita funding for post-secondary education that is now 17% lower than it was 10 years ago. Another fact is that federal support for post-secondary education has now dropped to 34%, the lowest level in 30 years. That is a fact. That is what is now causing the crisis in post-secondary education.

The impact of that decision by the Liberal government to erode accessibility in the retreat of public funding is that tuition fees have been forced up. As we know, higher tuition fees mean lower participation for low and moderate income students. There is just no escaping that fact. In fact, even Statistics Canada documented this in its report of December 2001. It showed that as far as student participation rates in 1998 were concerned, students from high income families were two and a half times more likely to attend college or university than those from low income families.

Canadians know this themselves. They do not need the info from Statistics Canada. A poll in October 2000 asked Canadians why they did not pursue post-secondary education if they were not already involved in it. The overwhelming response was that the main reason was the lack of financial accessibility, so I really have to protest the information that we have heard today from the Liberal government, the little bits of tinkering and pieces that have been put forward.

If the government had truly addressed the crisis facing us and students in the country, first, we would not be here debating this motion today and, second, we would not be facing the most severe limits on accessibility that we have ever seen. What is happening in the country is that high tuition is now discriminating against low and moderate income students.

In fact we also know that the converse is true. We have evidence that tells us that where there are lower tuition fees enrolment increases, particularly for low and moderate income students. We only have to look at British Columbia, where we had a tuition fees freeze in effect for five years and the enrolment in B.C. increased while in the rest of the country it actually decreased. Only two provinces, B.C. and Quebec, have really taken this on and frozen tuition fees and really tried to compensate for the retreat of public funding from the federal government. I am sad to report that now in B.C. the farm team of the federal Liberals, the provincial Liberals, has chucked out the tuition fees freeze. Tuition fees in B.C. now are going up by as much as 300%. Again, that will severely impact the accessibility for low income and moderate income students.

The current situation is clearly intolerable and it is simply not sustainable. We in the NDP believe that education must be a national priority, with the federal government playing a critical and decisive role. We require stable, long term federal funding. We require a national grant program, which has been advocated for by groups like the Canadian Federation of Students for many, many years. We do not need a millennium fund based on scholarship, but a national grants program. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national grants program.

We also need to have a tuition fees freeze. We need to have a rollback so that students have some capability and some chance of getting through their post-secondary education without graduating into poverty.

We also need to have the bankruptcy law repealed. The government brought about changes to the bankruptcy law that discriminated against students simply on the basis that they were students and basically raised the number of years after which they could declare bankruptcy to 10 years, virtually eliminating the idea that they could at any point declare bankruptcy.

Finally I want to say that probably one of the most important things for post-secondary education is to have some sense of national standards around accessibility. In fact, the Canadian Association of University Teachers has put forward a Canada post-secondary education act modelled on the Canada Health Act to provide not for profit, comprehensive, affordable, universally accessible and publicly administered post-secondary education across Canada.

Until we deal with those fundamental issues, I would suggest that we will still be facing a crisis.

I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I actually seconded the motion before us today because I saw it as one small step that could be taken to provide some relief, but I also believe that mitigating a disaster after it has happened really does not get us very far.What we really have to do is deal with the disaster before us. We have to recognize that the fundamental decision made by the Liberals in 1993 to cut the transfers and to decrease the amount of money going into post-secondary education, which forced tuition fees up and almost eliminated accessibility for low income students, is what we are really facing.

While the motion provides some relief, and again I am very glad that the member has brought it forward, I still believe that we have to deal with the fundamental issue and recognize in this country whether we believe education is a right for all Canadians to enjoy or simply a privilege for those who can afford it because they are affluent enough.

We in the NDP believe in the former. We believe that education is a right and that the federal government has a responsibility to show leadership on funding and for national standards in that regard.

[Mountain Pine Beetle, April 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to the motion put forward by the member for Cariboo--Chilcotin.

I want to thank the member for bringing forward the motion. I know he will be putting forward a motion to make it votable. It is a very important issue.

I represent an urban riding in British Columbia. I have driven through some of the infected areas in my travels through B.C. I can certainly attest to the fact that the mountain pine beetle is having a devastating impact on local communities and on the economy.

I congratulate the member for bringing forward the motion to have a debate to call on the government to take action to co-operate with British Columbia and local communities to deal with the issue.

The mountain pine beetle is an epidemic. At its widest point it is 700 kilometres long and 400 kilometres wide. It is hard to visualize that. The hon. member said that it was twice the size of Vancouver Island. The information I read from the emergency task force said that it was four times the size of Vancouver Island. However, whichever is correct, we are talking about a massive physical area of British Columbia that is affected.

In looking at the information that was presented by the emergency task force, it stated that what we were dealing with was not some sort of alien infestation.

The task force further stated:

Mountain pine beetle is a natural part of the forest ecosystems and is beneficial at endemic levels.

It goes on to state:

Currently populations are at epidemic levels as a result of mild winters and an abundance of large stands of mature pine.

I want to put forward a point of view on the measures that need to be taken to deal with this epidemic. From the material I have read, I want to express concern about some of the conclusions that have been drawn by the B.C. government, that is, that increased logging is the main solution to effectively control the mountain pine beetle populations.

There is evidence to show that increased clear cutting or salvage logging for the mountain pine beetle infested areas actually could pose a risk to ecological diversity. What we have to deal with in the long term is that less diversity of the forest decreases the ability of the forest to resist future outbreaks. This is very much a catch-22 situation. We are being told that massive cutting and salvage logging are the only choices but evidence shows that solution will put the longer term diversity of our forests at risk and will assist in future outbreaks.

I have read some material from the David Suzuki Foundation. It states:

For ecological and long-term economic reasons, it is essential that any management for the MPB, other bark beetles, and forests in general, be rooted in a sound ecosystem-based approach.

It goes on to state:

An ecosystem-based approach seeks to decrease the amount of area infected and the duration of outbreaks, both presently and in the future, while not compromising biodiversity conservation and ecosystem integrity.

I think that is a very important point. The foundation has also put forward some recommendations to the B.C. government for a management plan which I think would be pertinent to the debate today. It suggests that the following should be incorporated.

First, we should recognize that an outbreak of this scale is impossible to control. This means that a management strategy for the mountain pine beetle must be based on prevention of future outbreaks largely by manipulation of present and future beetle habitat with meaningful consideration of those manipulations for all forest values.

Second, we should recognize that there is no silver bullet solution that exists for this very complex issue. It requires forest managers to embrace a variety of treatments, including thinning and partial cutting strategies.

Therefore, it is not that cutting is not a strategy at all. What I would take issue with is that the B.C. government and the task force that has been put together seem to be relying primarily on that strategy. I think that is very problematic from a long term environmental point of view.

The other issue I want to briefly raise has to do with the reason this epidemic exists. We heard it from the member who presented the motion today. We also heard it from the task force that was put together. The epidemic exists as a result of mild winters. I do not think there is any escaping the reality that this infestation, this epidemic, is linked to mild winters which is linked to global warming. Until we can face that reality, we are really living under some sort of illusion that we will solve problems like this in the short term when in fact we are actually creating longer term problems.

Paul George, the founding director of the western Canada wilderness committee, which is a Vancouver based conservation group, says directly that the massive beetle infestation is a direct result of global warming.

He goes on to state:

Between the drought and global warming these are perfect conditions for the beetle to proliferate. We haven't had a minus 30 degrees cold snap in a long time. We've been having long, dry summers.The trees are stressed, and logging spreads the beetles. Every time they take a truck with logs that have bark on them, the beetle infested bark drops off, and the beetles spread.

I offer these viewpoints because I strongly concur with the member's feelings of frustration. This problem has not been dealt with and it has been allowed to escalate. The federal government has not shown the kind of leadership that it should.

However, we need to be extremely careful and balanced in the way we deal with this epidemic.

I agree with the member. The federal government must co-operate with the province of British Columbia, especially when dealing with its own lands. However, the member does not spell out in his motion what he means by eradicating measures. Based on the comments he made today in the House, I conclude that he basically means increased cutting and the removal of trees. This should be considered in a balanced way in terms of other ecologically based management measures that will protect the long term diversity of our forests.

I thank the member for bringing the motion forward. I support the need for the federal government to co-operate with British Columbia and with local communities but we need to do it in a way that will not ruin our forests in the future.

[Child Care, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in September 2000 the federal Liberal government unveiled its early childhood development strategy amid much fanfare that finally families and children would have access to quality child care programs. Eighteen months later Statistics Canada now reports that the cost of child care has risen sharply. Worse, 90% of Canadian children under six years are in unregulated care and only seven of 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions have put federal money into child care.

It is crystal clear that the $400 million per year for five years earmarked by the feds is far short of the $2.2 billion per year that is required. The federal government gets a failing grade from kids and parents. Instead of comprehensiveness, universality, accessibility, quality and accountability we received useless principles and every province for itself.

I ask the HRDC minister today, what happened to all those Liberal promises for child care? What happened to the 150,000 spaces to be created each year? Why are kids always at the--

[Infrastructure, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, municipal leaders in the FCM have consistently championed the need for a federal plan and financial support for our cities. However the recent announcement about money for the Toronto transit only highlights the completely ad hoc and political nature of the decisions being made by the federal government.

What about other cities like Vancouver that are just as in need? Do they have to rely on deals on the side, one against the other, or is the government prepared to show us a credible plan that will benefit all our cities and public transit right across the country? Where is the plan or is it just one by one?