Libby Davies

[Species at Risk Act, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-5 and the group of amendments before us.

I want to begin by referring to a poll that appeared in the Vancouver Sun today. It makes it clear that more than three-quarters of Canadians support mandatory protection of the habitat of endangered plants and animals as well as of the plants and animals themselves. The story included a photograph of the Vancouver Island marmot which is one of 112 species that are at risk in British Columbia. It is part of 388 species that have been identified as very much at risk.

The poll was very interesting because it reflects significantly the outpouring of concern that has taken place right across the country in urban and rural areas. Canadians understand the importance of having legislation that will have a real impact in saving endangered species. The feedback I have had in my community is that people are not going to be satisfied with a piece of legislation that glosses over the fundamental issues that are at risk in terms of species at risk.

The poll in today's Vancouver Sun very much echoes a town hall meeting which I held in my riding a while ago on this bill. We heard from a number of speakers, including Jamie Woods of Defenders of Wildlife; Jacqueline Pruner, of Western Canada Wilderness Committee; and David Cadman of the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. I held the meeting because I had had so much feedback from people who expressed their concern about how the government's attempt the second time around, not even the third time around, was still significantly weak. In that meeting it became very clear that people believed if we enacted legislation that allowed political interference in making decisions about what was deemed to be at risk and if it was not based on science then we would have a piece of legislation that was gutless.

The most significant concern from my riding is that unless the bill can adequately lay out protection of the habitat where these various species live then again it will be a gutless piece of legislation. True enough, one of the major criticisms of the bill is that it does not adequately protect habitat.

In terms of the Group No. 4 amendments, the member for Windsor--St. Clair, our environment critic, along with other members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have worked incredibly hard to counter the intransigence of the government in thwarting the will of the Canadian public in dealing with this legislation. It has gone back and forth. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has done a good job in trying to develop a consensus and come up with amendments to make the bill significantly stronger, to make it reflect what Canadians are telling us they want in terms of protection of habitat and consultation and the involvement of first nations communities.

We have some difficulty with the amendments before us today. This reflects a process of how the Minister of the Environment and the government have sought to weaken the committee's report and have sought to undermine the work that has been done to strengthen the bill. We find it very difficult to accept some of these amendments. Some of them are a modest improvement over what was originally proposed. Nevertheless they undermine and weaken what has been worked at for so long and so hard by the committee.

The NDP position on SARA, the species at risk act, has been consistent from day one. We believe very strongly that the identification and listing of species at risk should be done by an independent committee of scientists wherein scientific evidence and not political interpretation of data is the primary consideration.

On that point it is very interesting because the government has taken the other position. On Thursday, April 25 in question period the Minister of Canadian Heritage responded to a question from the Alliance about the rate of TB in elk herds in Canada's parks. She was being criticized for the fact that TB cases were increasing. The minister in reply to the member said:

Mr. Speaker, the reason we asked scientists to carry on this very important work is precisely because it should not be left in the hands of politicians.

We could not have said it better ourselves. That is exactly the position the NDP put forward. It is ironic that it is now coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. It really contradicts the position that has been put forward by the environment minister. This is despite all the criticism and scientific evidence that it is important there be an independent committee made up of scientists, and its objective and primary consideration be factual work rather than a political interpretation.

The NDP has also made it very clear there should be comprehensive nationwide natural habitat protection, including protection for species that range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international borders. As someone who comes from British Columbia, this is especially important. Many of our wildlife areas are very close to a geopolitical boundary.

Habitat does not know about the boundary; it does not know about the 49th parallel. A very fundamental point is that nationwide natural habitat protection that includes cross-boundary measures should be front and centre in the bill. Unfortunately it is not.

The NDP believes there should be inclusion of stakeholders in the development of species recovery plans. This is something that the committee grappled with. In the back and forth between the committee and the government and the point we are at now, these positions have been significantly undermined. This is regrettable.

In many respects the people who watch the debate see it as a test of how legislation passes through the House. They also see it as how public feedback is incorporated or not incorporated, how the wishes of the people actually become part of the legislation.

I can think of many pieces of legislation that have come through the House. Consistently, significant concerns have been expressed from all over the country in terms of the bill being much too weak.

We in the NDP have concerns about the amendments before us today. We certainly have voiced our opposition to the bill as a whole based on the current status of the amendments. It is unfortunate the government did not listen to the wisdom of the committee and seek to strengthen the bill.

Many people will be watching the debate and the vote. We should take heed of the fact that three-quarters of the Canadian population want to see national habitat protection.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, particularly as I know that he too has supported the Falun Gong members who have been here on Parliament Hill. I know that many of us have supported their efforts. However, if they were in the House today and we were to ask them as people who have direct experience, those who have come from the People's Republic of China or have friends or relatives there, whether or not they think the WTO will be the mechanism that will guarantee or even necessarily improve their freedom to speak and to practise their beliefs, I think the answer we would get is no.

Yes, I certainly support anything that will encourage a more participatory government, but I think we have to understand that the WTO is about trade liberalization. It is not about strengthening workers' rights, basic social rights or political and civil rights. It does not deal with those aspects. There may be some references to having greater transparency in government and so on. We certainly saw all of that during the FTAA in Quebec City. In fact, it was very interesting to see how all of the leaders who came here from the Americas, and including our own Prime Minister, were bending over backwards to try and convince us that the FTAA would be the vehicle to improve democracy in the Americas, yet there is really no critical analysis to back that up. In fact the evidence is to the contrary. When we look at these trade agreements, we see that they actually provide more and more concentration of power among fewer and fewer people. They actually undermine the democratic process.

While I appreciate the member's comments, I guess I have to disagree. I do not believe that the WTO, in either the short run or the long run, will deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed today in the House about Tibet, about the situation of workers, about the environment or about improving democratic government.

[Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, April 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50. Other of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have spoken during other stages and we remain opposed to the bill.

In listening to the debate today I have to say the irony of it has not escaped me. Much of the discussion by various members has focused on their feelings, issues and concerns about the People's Republic of China, the status of its workers and the environment. In reality we are debating something that has already happened. The People's Republic of China joined the World Trade Organization last December.

We are debating what is primarily housekeeping legislation which deals with the consequences of dealing with Canadian industries that will be negatively impacted and seeking some protection for about 12 years. I suppose in the total order of things as consequences go, the best thing is to try to seek some protection. However the underlying issue that keeps coming out in the debate, whether one is for or against the bill, is the position of China and its role within the WTO and its role within the global community.

It is ironic because the vehicle that has allowed this to happen is a membership in a very elite club. My colleague from the Bloc, whom I usually agree with, a few minutes ago talked about China taking its place. I want to express the irony that somehow the World Trade Organization has become the symbol of whatever it means for a country or a nation state to take its place. The WTO in and of itself is fundamentally an undemocratic institution. It is fundamentally an organization that places the needs of capital movement and of corporations to do trade with the minimum amount of rules above the issues of a democratically elected parliament here in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

In some ways it is unfortunate. I sense that a huge gap exists between what we would like to debate in terms of our concerns with the PRC and our ability to express them, which somehow has been channeled into the WTO. The WTO has made it very clear it has no intention, despite many efforts, to deal with concerns around the environment or international labour laws. I say that by way of preface because that is fundamentally why members of the New Democratic Party cannot support the bill.

Today in question period I raised the terrible situation that is unfolding in my province of British Columbia around the massive restructuring of health care. It relates to this bill because what is taking place in my province is a wholesale restructuring of public services that have been built up over many decades.

Sixty-five hundred people stand to lose their jobs in the health care system. These are people who care for frail people, elderly and sick people in community care settings and long term care institutions. Those of us who have been following the debate in B.C. are most concerned about the jeopardy of what is now to come and that is privatization. With privatization comes an exposure of these public services under these trade agreements. Therefore they are very much related.

The situation in B.C. is very much on my mind today. I continue to get calls from constituents who are asking what happened to our medicare system and why is it not at the top of the federal political agenda. Is the feeling that we have this universal medicare system not one thing that speaks to who we are as Canadians?

Yet it too is under attack because of lack of funding, because of setting the stage for privatization that would be facilitated not by the bill itself but by what has caused this bill to come forward, which is the World Trade Organization. I am deeply concerned about the state of things, where we are headed as a country and where the planet is headed.

I have already said that the WTO is a very undemocratic organization. There is no opportunity for ordinary citizens to be heard. My colleagues in the federal NDP and I have participated in many rallies, workshops and demonstrations around trade liberalization and what is commonly referred to as globalization. Amazingly thousands of people have taken it upon themselves to become informed and educated about organizations such as the WTO, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Even a decade ago there was very little information known about these already very powerful organizations. The only reason we have some knowledge about their vast impact on our daily lives, the economy and the democratic life of our country and our ability to create laws in the public interest is citizens have taken it upon themselves to become informed and to organize, to mobilize. They are standing up for the public interest. They are saying that the interests of all of us in society are more important and have to take precedence over private corporate interests. That is another reason we in the NDP are strongly opposed to the WTO.

In terms of the impact Bill C-50 would have, I listened to my colleague from the Bloc speak about model cities in China, about China taking its place and that this was a way to encourage development between the two countries. It seems to me that the ability to do that through the WTO or through trade agreements is non-existent. Whenever issues around human rights, the environment or poverty have been put forward as part of the trade issue, they have always been bounced off.

We have seen it time after time with team Canada, with all of the infrastructure and the millions of dollars it costs to put those things together, when it goes on those big trade missions to China. Various organizations have sought to have the social concerns and the human rights concerns put forward as part of those delegations and missions. They are always told that they do not belong there as it is a trade mission and to have faith because trade will improve everything else. I do not see any evidence of that happening.

One of the most disturbing things is that China stands out internationally for its flagrant disregard of human rights. We have heard about the situation in Tibet. I have been to many rallies to support the self-determination of the Tibetan people. Their cultural, religious and political freedoms have been brutally squashed in the People's Republic of China.

We only have to look at the situation facing workers in that country. We know that in March of last year China actually ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is good. It is a very important covenant to which Canada is also a signatory. It spells out social and economic rights of individual citizens of a country that has become a signatory.

Ironically China filed a reservation under article 8.1(a). What does that do? It prevents workers from freely forming trade unions.

This encompasses the most fundamental freedom, the right of workers to organize freely without interference from the state or from the employer, to negotiate on a level playing field, to assert their rights and to have decent working conditions and wages. The People's Republic of China filed a reservation on that section.

There are numerous abuses and violations of the most basic rights that would be recognized by the International Labour Organization. We hear horror stories of what happens in factories. In some instances women involved in mass production are actually locked in a factory and when a fire breaks out they cannot escape. Many workers burn to death.

It is hard to imagine that kind of situation in Canada, although it did happen many decades ago. One reason for May Day and International Women's Day is they recognize the struggles that have taken place for working people to actually assert their rights and to win the most basic thing, which is safe working conditions.

It is 2002 and we are still facing the reality that the People's Republic of China does not allow those basic freedoms to be enjoyed by its workers. It does not allow basic political freedoms or religious freedoms. We have witnessed the Falun Gong members on Parliament Hill. They have spoken out because their members in China have been tortured, murdered and silenced from practising their beliefs.

These things are relevant to the debate today because we are part of the global community. In some ways we are part of setting the standard. Many people around the globe look to Canada as a place that has a basic value of respecting fundamental human rights.

Historically, we certainly have had situations in Canada. One only has to look at the tragedy of what has happened to the aboriginal people and how they have been marginalized, criminalized and had land taken from them. We have our history too. Nevertheless, many people look to Canada as a place where human rights are respected. There is a belief that we should be a leader in the international community not only to defend rights in Canada but also to speak out in the international community.

While the consequences of the bill are to provide some safeguards to Canadian industries and hopefully it will have some effect in that way, I have to be very clear that even at this late stage of the debate the NDP cannot in principle support the bill because of what underlies it. Based on the conversations I have had and the education I have gone through in talking with constituents, I feel strongly that people in Canada want to see our federal government engage in trade practices that are fair.

We want to engage in trade practices that recognize the protection of our environment, the establishment of important labour standards, the establishment of social standards. They cannot be divorced from trade. These are not separate but are part and parcel of one another.

We stand most strongly for the idea of fair trade. It is not that we are opposed to international trade. It exists. Trading has gone on for thousands of years and more so in today's technological world. However, I would stand here today and every other day and argue that we should never defend a jurisdiction, an agreement or an organization that usurps democratic practice or undermines democratic legislation and removes the power of government in favour of creating an unfettered field for private corporations.

Even the notion of free trade is such a loaded term because it is basically free trade at the expense of everything else. I reject that. It is not that I reject trade. I reject the notion and the practice of what has now escalated so rapidly in the last decade. Now we see that after 15 years of negotiations the People's Republic of China has entered this world elite club of the WTO. Some people I know see that as fabulous news and as the vehicle for better relations, but let it be said that I think there is a growing number of people who do not see that as an appropriate vehicle and who will continue to speak out to defend human rights and to protect the environment.

In closing I would just reiterate that we do not support the bill. We will continue to express our concerns about what happens in our own country and also internationally. We are part of the global community. I am very proud that defending international covenants and international human rights is something that we as New Democrats do and I know we will continue to do that.

[Health Care, April 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Minister of Health that nobody buys her lame excuses any more because the writing is clearly on the wall. I do not know whether she is in denial or she is ignorant about what is going on, but it is clear that the gutting of our public health care system is underway. Privatization is going to come in, with user fees to boot.

I want to ask the health minister again, is she going to hold the provinces accountable or will she continue to give cash to Campbell for closing hospitals and destroying our health care system? Who is going to stand up for this medicare system and where is the Minister of Health on that question?

[Housing, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are still waiting to benefit from the housing agreement that was signed with the provinces and the territories last year. In B.C. the provincial Liberals are diverting desperately needed housing dollars into seniors care. In Ontario they are trying to get away with group homes and care facilities while ruling out affordable housing by definition. It is a far cry from what was supposedly agreed to.

The Deputy Prime Minister has this important file. Why is he not insisting on affordable clear outcomes for affordable not for profit housing instead of letting the provinces off the hook while lining the pockets of developers? Why is this agreement--

[Health, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network released a significant report on establishing safe injection facilities in Canada.

I applaud the report because it powerfully outlines the ongoing public health crisis in injection drug use and the need to follow the successful models developed in Europe and Australia to make safe injection sites part of a comprehensive approach to improving the health of drug users and the community as a whole.

In the downtown east side the death toll continues to rise because simple, effective life saving measures like safe injection sites have not been allowed. This landmark report calls on the federal government to create a regulatory framework to govern safe injection facilities. It also calls on the Minister of Health to grant ministerial exemptions to allow facilities on a trial basis.

This Sunday at First United Church, right at the epicentre of this health epidemic, a demonstration site will be set up for a week. I implore the Minister of Health to show leadership and support the report and the community advocates who are displaying such courage in working for these critically needed health measures.

[The Middle East, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Mercier for bringing forward the motion we are debating tonight which has allowed us the opportunity to take part in an emergency debate on the Middle East.

I hope to be part of a parliamentary delegation that will visit the West Bank and Gaza in the coming months. In preparing for that trip I have tried to comprehend and even imagine how I and my neighbours would feel if we were under occupation. I have tried to imagine what it would be like if ambulances could not get through. I have tried to imagine what it would be like if people were bleeding to death and could not get to the hospital. I have tried to think about what it would mean if my son could not go to school or was rounded up because he was over 18 and Christian. I have tried to imagine how I would feel if I were not allowed to work or my home were taken from me and the world did not care. I know I would feel angry and desperate and feel that there was no hope.

However those are the realities for the world's largest refugee population and for a people who have been dispossessed.

I have tried to educate myself to have an understanding of what it means when a whole population has been held hostage and stripped of every human and democratic right as we are seeing today. It is ironic and horrifying to me that the state of Israel, which prides itself on being a democratic country, has nothing left now but a campaign of brutality and militarism against civilians. Let us not forget that this is also a state with nuclear weapons and nuclear capability but somehow that is always overlooked in favour of other demons close by.

It is so easy to fall prey to the question of sides as though this were a situation of equals battling it out, but it is not. If we look at any map of the area we will see the highways that have been deliberately constructed to link illegal settlements and isolate Palestinian communities. We can see the geographically divided Palestinian territories now held captive by illegal occupation. We can see the refugee camps where temporary has become permanent and life becomes a struggle with death.

I attended my colleague's press conference this morning, the member for Burnaby--Douglas. I want to voice my support and show my respect for his courage to speak out and to bear witness firsthand to the activities and the brutality that are taking place. During his press conference he talked about attending a huge rally in Tel Aviv on Saturday night of 15,000 Israelis protesting Sharon's horrible war. This rally received no coverage here because that would confuse our understanding of what is manufactured for public consumption.

I know many Canadian Palestinians and Canadian Jews find it difficult to carry on with their Canadian lives when their relatives, friends and home communities are under threat of violence and destruction. How can any community survive and be intact when suicide bombings are taking place? Surely there must be a recognition that the retaliation of brutal violence by Israeli defence forces is creating a poisoned environment and devastation that is the antithesis of justice and peace. Sharon may continue his personal war but we are complicit if we stand by and do nothing.

I also know that Canadian NGOs, both here and in the occupied territories, as evidenced by Oxfam-Québec, are seeing their efforts, their services and their carefully built infrastructure literally blown to bits. What utter waste, what sense of hopelessness and what new form of state terror has been unleashed in the name of democracy delivered through the shells of a tank.

Earlier this evening the leader of the NDP spoke passionately when she called on our government to have the courage to stand with the international community and to be unequivocal in condemning the illegal reoccupation of Palestinian lands and people. I have heard many fine speeches tonight and I am sure that we all want the same thing.

Yet there is this feeling, and it has even been echoed by some members on the government side, that Canada has become impotent, misguided at best and cowardly at worst. If there is anything that comes of this debate tonight it must be a commitment that we will use our democratic rights to insist that a just political settlement be found. It must be a settlement that recognizes the sovereign lands of both Palestinian and Israeli states, but it will only happen if the illegal military occupation ends forthwith and the right of refugees to return is also recognized.

I cannot believe that the Canadian government voted against the resolution in Geneva last week mandating the UN human rights commissioner to investigate and observe the situation, basically to do her job. Tonight the government has heard from all sides of the House and now our government must act. I ask government members to please not be their usual wimpy selves. They should act to defend international law. They should act to end the military occupation by Israel. They should act to create the social and political environment from which peace can evolve.

[Softwood Lumber, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, forestry workers in B.C. are wondering who the heck is in charge of the softwood lumber file.

On the one hand the Minister of Natural Resources is publicly suggesting that Canada reconsider support for U.S. demands on energy or even pay the cost of the tariff and provide assistance to the industry and the workers. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister has been silent. We heard his comments in B.C. on desperately needed assistance. He has clearly distanced himself from the minister.

While this charade goes on, communities and workers are suffering. We want to know today exactly what is the government's position, what assistance will be provided, what else is on the table and who speaks--

[Criminal Code, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-304, the private member's bill put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby.

The hon. member has spent a number of years working with youth. He has expressed a lot of concerns about street prostitution and the impact it has on local communities and on the prostitutes themselves. I appreciate his concerns and agree with the goals he has expressed today. He wants to improve safety in local communities, on our streets, in neighbourhoods where there are schools and so on. I support the goal of stopping violence against and exploitation of sex trade workers or prostitutes, particularly juveniles.

However I have a somewhat different perspective. If the goal is to stop exploitation as the hon. member said in his opening remarks, I have difficulty understanding how we could do so by making criminal sanctions against prostitutes stronger. If we want to stop exploitation why would we look at further criminalization? The hon. member says the bill is focused on the need to address the situation of juveniles on the street. However nothing in the bill is directed toward juveniles. If that is the primary goal it is not expressed in the bill.

If Bill C-304 were approved it would give more power to the police. It would give them the discretion to go from a summary offence to an indictable offence. It would give police authorities more power in the hope they could somehow solve the issue.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with the hon. member. It is a mistake to think we could deal with safety or the exploitation or juveniles on the street by handing the police more powers. For years police departments have campaigned for much stronger criminal sanctions. They have campaigned for fingerprinting as the hon. member mentioned. They were upset the day the old vagrancy laws were taken away because they were a powerful tool to round up anyone they had the slightest suspicion about. These things are a huge invasion of civil liberties. While the bill's goals may be good, the narrow mechanism it proposes for dealing with offences pertaining to prostitution under the criminal code is the wrong way to go.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. As I am sure many members know, we have a most horrible situation unfolding in the national media. People are aware that 50 women, mostly prostitutes, have gone missing. Many are aboriginal women. The hon. member said if his bill had been in effect the women may not be missing or dead. If it had been in effect it would not have improved their safety whatsoever. It would have pushed them into a more criminalized lifestyle.

One of the problems we are facing is that when women on the street involved in the sex trade are subject to abuse and violence the police are often the last people they go to for protection because there may be warrants against them. They are already in a criminal environment.

Bill C-304 is the wrong way to go. During this important debate about the laws pertaining to prostitution we need to have an honest examination of the issue.

I have written to the Minister of Justice. I called on him to look at and expand the work of the working group on prostitution. I called on him to bring forward the idea of a special committee that would publicly look at the issue. I called on him to recognize there are hypocrisies in the law as it stands today. As the hon. member pointed out, prostitution is not illegal. It is illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, keep a common bawdy house and so on, but in reality engaging in prostitution through an escort service or body rub parlour is completely ignored. Although it is “illegal” there is no public attention to the issue and no outcry about it. It points out the hypocrisy of our laws.

Rather than the bill before us today I would like to see an examination of the criminal code to look at ways to decrease violence and exploitation of women on the street. It is a huge mistake to say making the offences indictable would somehow improve the situation of the women and the safety of the neighbourhoods.

I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter forward. However I do not support the measure being suggested in the bill. I have talked to a number of colleagues who share the same opinion. I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's response. I would encourage the Minister of Justice to pay attention to what is happening in the downtown east side and to the fact that the women went missing over a period of time and nothing was done. We need a public inquiry into the police investigation that did not take place. I and many others in the community have called for it.

More particularly we need to examine the role and impact of federal laws pertaining to offences around prostitution. We need to ask whether they are contributing to an environment that makes the lives of the women more unsafe and safety in the communities harder to attain. We need to have that debate. It will not take place merely as a result of Bill C-304.

I urge the Minister of Justice to respond to the very real concerns coming out of the community. He should to look at the work done by the working group on prostitution. He should recognize the double standards that exist in the law today and say yes, we must stop the exploitation of juveniles. We should call it what it is. It is the abuse of children and we should have strong criminal sanctions against it. However making it a generally indictable offence would not offer a solution. If anything it would create a more unsafe situation for local communities and women on the street.

I thank the hon. member for bringing the bill forward. Regrettably, it is something I cannot support.

[International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

While we celebrate the multiculturalism and diversity of Canada and acknowledge the history and inherent rights of aboriginal peoples we are also called to speak out against racism, discrimination and injustice.

Recent studies have shown there is growing racism in this nation since the tragedy of September 11. We have also learned that newcomers to Canada, the majority of whom are visible minorities, are twice as likely to live in poverty as a result of the discrimination they face in employment practices.

We in the NDP stand in solidarity with all those who work to ensure that human rights are respected.

On this day we reaffirm our commitment to stop racism, hatred and xenophobia. We call on the government to address the systemic barriers of racism and discrimination that prevent many from participating fully in the social, political, cultural and economic life of Canada.