Libby Davies

[Airline Security, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the minister dropped the ball on the airlines but he is also bumbling on airport security. The system has now lost the confidence of the travelling public and pilots but the minister is still pondering and considering.

Why would the minister hang on to a system that rewards the lowest bid, where training and quality are not the highest priorities? Will the minister make a commitment to Canadians today to take over passenger screening services and guarantee proper training and infrastructure so the system is not a bad joke and security is the top priority? Will he do that?

[Human Rights, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on September 21 the House unanimously passed a motion presented by the leader of the NDP to speak out against intolerance and hatred directed at Muslims and Arabs and to reassert our country's fundamental adherence to the rule of law and to preserving and protecting our human rights as outlined in the charter.

Yet the government has not acted to protect people. Hate crimes continue. Racial profiling continues and Canadian Arabs, Muslims and all visible minorities feel under attack.

The situation of Mohamed Attiah who worked at Atomic Energy of Canada is a graphic example of racial profiling and a poisonous environment of guilt by suspicion.

Mr. Attiah has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a lawsuit as a result of being let go from his employment after being questioned by the RCMP and security forces. Is this what we call tolerance and respect for people's rights?

I call on the government to adopt the NDP's action plan to stop the targeting of visible minorities and to be clear that what happened to Mr. Attiah is unacceptable and wrong.

[Contraventions Act, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I very much support this bill and want to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca for bringing it forward for debate. I am glad it will be a votable bill.

One of the issues we have to examine in deciding whether we support the bill is what the real public health risk is that is associated with cannabis use. There has been an enormous amount of evidence, which we could probably stack several feet high, to show that the risk to individual or public health from the use of cannabis is minimal. In fact what really has happened in the country is that the greatest risk to public health when it comes to drug use is from prohibitionist policies.

It is ironic that is the criminalization of drug users, whether it is in regard to cannabis or other substances, that has created the greatest harm in our society, whether it involves individual health or safety in our communities or people who are forced into a criminal lifestyle. To me that is the heart of the issue. We must have an honest debate. We must break down the barriers and mythology surrounding Canada's drug policies and our moral attitudes toward drugs and critically examine the fact that it is prohibition and criminalization that have created harm for and risk to public and individual health, not the drugs themselves, although they can create harm.

Today I was at the special committee on the non-medical use of drugs. We heard from a witness, Dr. Eric Single, professor of public health sciences in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto, who has done a lot of research on drug use and substance abuse, particularly in Australia. He pointed out to the committee that in Australia where decriminalization has taken place the use of cannabis did not increase. In fact, not sending people to jail had no counterbalancing effect in terms of increasing use. What it did do was reduce law enforcement costs significantly.

I found it amusing to hear from the government member that we have to be so careful and cautious, that we have to study it and weigh all the angles. Let us get real here. Let us remember that it was 30 years ago that the Le Dain commission conducted a thorough examination of the issue and came to the conclusion that cannabis or marijuana should be decriminalized. In fact it went further and made many other recommendations, so this is not progressing at exactly a rapid rate.

I would argue that the public is far ahead of the politicians on this one. We can go to just about any survey, national, provincial or regional, and we will see that Canadians are much more realistic about this issue than those of us who are in elected positions. More than anything in this debate and when it comes to a vote, people need to have the courage to be realistic on the issue and break down the mythology that exists.

We in the NDP actually have dealt with the issue. Indeed, at our national convention in 1999 we passed a resolution stating: “Be it resolved that the NDP support the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in its call for decriminalization of cannabis”.

This bill is a private member's bill and I thank the member for bringing it forward, but it is ironic in that I do not think his party has the nerve to do it. We really have to do a lot of education because it should be more than private members' business. It is something that as a political institution we should be standing up for and taking on. I hope the member will do some work within his own party to get it to adopt a stand for decriminalization.

The bill is important. I guess my only complaint would be that it does not go far enough. It really is the tip of the iceberg.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. It includes the downtown east side, which is probably the epicentre in the western world for HIV-AIDS and injection drug users. There is really just an open drug scene now. There are people whose lives are devastated. There are people who are in pain, who suffer trauma and who have been marginalized as a result of criminalization due to Canada's drug laws. While we are debating the decriminalization of marijuana, let us really link it to the broader issue, which is that we absolutely have to look at Canada's drug laws. They have to be reformed, just as the Le Dain commission said 30 years ago.

Today in Vancouver the special Senate committee is actually holding a hearing and it will be hearing from drug users themselves, people who have actually come together and organized to speak out so that they are no longer marginalized and their voices are being heard.

I had a letter sent to the hearing today because I could not be there. In outlining the crisis that has faced our community with injection drug use and the lack of action by levels of government, what I asked the committee to look at and to urge the federal government to act swiftly and adopt were the following points.

We need a strategy and a program for user accessible treatment on demand. There are people who are facing addiction and want to get into treatment but they cannot because it is not available or not accessible.

We need a realistic and honest drug education program focused on health and well-being. We have so many programs run by police departments, which basically tell kids that if they use cannabis or do this or that they will become drug addicts and die. Kids know that is not true. We need an honest education program focused on people's understanding of their own bodies, of their own health and of what is appropriate use, rather than just a message of “say no to drugs” when we know kids are not listening to it.

I have called for a safe injection site. So have many other people.

I have called for multicentre heroin trials and for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use as a step toward a more critical discussion on the legalization of marijuana and other substances.

We need support and housing programs for injection drug users who have been marginalized and criminalized by current attitudes and laws.

We also need testing of on the street drugs to provide critical information to health care providers in order to prevent overdoses. I want to say one thing about this. Because of the barriers we have to dealing with this issue realistically and because we as a society have been so afraid to deal with the issue of drug use, we have created an environment where people are literally living off the street and buying drugs on the illegal market. As a result, they are dying from overdoses in enormous numbers. These deaths are preventable. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of death for people between 30 and 44, more so than heart attacks, car accidents, strokes or cancers. These are preventable deaths if only we have the courage to provide the kind of harm reducing, realistic policies necessary, to provide treatment on demand, to provide realistic education and to help people where they are at and not further criminalize them.

I welcome this debate today because it is one more step in what has been a struggle for legislatures in terms of standing up and taking on this issue. I sincerely hope that there will be an honest assessment of this issue in the House and that we will not hide behind our perception of people's morals. I sincerely hope that we will be honest and realistic and support the bill, that we will see it as a step toward a more critical debate and discussion about the need to reform Canada's drug laws and the fact that prohibitionist policies have caused the greatest harm in our society, both to individuals and to communities.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the government of Quebec has made a decision to reinvest in social housing. When I travelled across the country I used to say that I was proud to be from British Columbia because, along with Quebec, those were the only two provinces investing in social housing. Regrettably now I have to say it is only Quebec because in B.C. provincial funds for social housing have been frozen. I applaud the fact that in Quebec there is still a commitment.

I hope the member would agree with me that, if we had a federal commitment as well, we would then have a program, not just in Quebec but in all provinces and in all urban centres in smaller communities. This would be a significant, positive stimulus to our economy and result in the creation of good jobs, in many cases well paying union jobs.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we had more time to speak about this. I recently had the opportunity to go to Nunavut and visit Iqaluit. I met with housing activists, as well as one of the government ministers.

The member is quite correct. The situation there is quite appalling. I visited an emergency shelter and a number of public housing units. Every single person I met told me that they wanted to see a commitment from the federal government to a national housing strategy that would enable them to make housing a priority.

They are willing to put money into it, but they need the support of the federal government. I would say clearly to the member that he and I, along with other members of the House, should do all we can to see that the next federal budget makes housing a priority, so that the people of Nunavut are not out in the cold this winter. This is something that obviously in that climate they cannot afford to do.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly concur with the member. New immigrants are particularly vulnerable in a marketplace where job loss can be very vague in terms of corporations that pull out of a community.

I have a fairly sizeable garment industry in my riding of Vancouver East. It is a very competitive business. I know there are new immigrants who work very hard in these industries, yet they can be thrown out of work in an instant.

I agree with the hon. member that the study done by the committee highlighted the issues facing older workers. There has been no response from the federal government in terms of an infrastructure or support for older workers to make sure they are not the first to be laid off when they still have family responsibilities or mortgage responsibilities.

As has been noted, the employment insurance system is a joke. We are talking about older workers who may have paid into that system and have paid their insurance for decades. Yet when they become unemployed they may not be able to take advantage of it because the criteria have become so strict. I find that a real tragedy.

Bringing in a budget is an opportunity to use public policy and use a budget to deal with these inequities within our society. We have to make sure that older workers, new immigrant workers or people who are trying to get into the workforce have a fair opportunity. They have to have the proper kinds of support and programs for their families so that all people can prosper and benefit.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because I actually did not get a chance to go into other areas. I am glad he raised this aspect of the federal budget.

I think he will know that the New Democratic Party has been a political party that has always stood strong and firm on being part of the international community that meets its obligations in the international community. While I do not have the figures in front of me, it is very disappointing that over a number of years Canada has slipped in its commitment to overseas development aid.

Look at the global situation now with the bombing in Afghanistan. Clearly our party has unequivocally been opposed to that war. We have said that it is critical that aid be increased for Afghanistan, but also for other countries.

This again really gets to the issue of security. Security is not just about military forces and people dealing with conflict. Security is dealing with the conditions that create hopelessness, despair and poverty. Canada has had a good track record but that track record is now being tarnished.

In reply to the hon. member, I believe there are members on the other side of the House who have strong support for international development and overseas development aid. We in the New Democratic Party feel strongly about that too and believe that it should be an area that Canada strengthens as part of a progressive commitment to the international community.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the prebudget debate. My colleague from Regina--Qu'Appelle spoke eloquently a few days ago in debate and laid out the general approach on behalf of the New Democratic Party. However, I too want to add my concerns about the state of the economy and what is facing low income Canadians in particular as we now move into the prebudget and into what will unfold in a budget that will be before us very quickly.

I heard the member across the way talk about the need for security. There is no question that the events of September 11 have heightened everybody's awareness about issues of security. I remember reading the headline in the Globe and Mail , “One billion dollars for security”. I guess that is just the early estimate of what these measures will cost us.

In speaking in this debate today, I also want to put forward, as many people are doing, the idea and the importance that security is more than border crossings, more than police enforcement and more than protection of our borders or airports. They are important security measures about which Canadians are very concerned, however, security can also mean other things, particularly in the lives of Canadians who are at the bottom of the economic system. We can talk about food security, housing security, income security and services or program security.

I feel very saddened when I look at previous budgets in the House and see that there has been very little emphasis and very little debate around that part of security and what it means to Canadians. As we approach the budget and give our responses and concerns to the finance minister and the government, it is very important that there be a full debate, with diversity in the debate, so that it does not just focus on almost a panic that sets in and a mindset that all money has to be funnelled into national security.

I think there is a very great concern out in the public among various organizations, whether it is the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the National Anti-Poverty Organization or the National Housing and Homelessness Network, all of which have done an immense amount of work. They are contributing to this debate by pointing out that after four years of massive surpluses, which were actually created in large part by cutting back on our social programs, created on the backs of poor people, we have to be very careful that we do not move now into an era when low income poor people and disadvantaged people will again suffer a disproportionate burden as we move into a budget that will possibly have a huge emphasis on national security.

In my mail yesterday I received a very interesting report, and maybe other members received it too, “The Third Annual Report on the Status of Inequality in Canada”, produced by the CSJ Foundation for Research and Education. The report is titled “When Markets Fail People, Exploring the widening gap between rich and poor in Canada”.

I will begin my remarks today by quoting from this report because to me it really sets out one of the fundamental issues we are facing and yet I believe the government has miserably failed to deal with it. The report states:

This report, When Markets Fail People, asserts that growing inequality is fundamentally tied to our market system and that, both in periods of recession and recovery, inequality between rich and poor has continued to grow. This is why income inequality is at its largest spread than at any point in the last generation...Years of neo-liberal policies have promised that the private market is the best solution to inequality and that (somehow) we can simply grow our way out of poverty.

The report continues:

The study reveals that market income improvements during economic booms are very sticky. They accumulate at the top, flow somewhat to the top half of income earners, dribble down to the poorer half of the population and completely dry up before they reach the poorest 10% among us.

This is a stark conclusion and a sharp judgment on the economic policies of the Liberal government for the last decade. We have seen the Liberal government pushed from the right by the Reform Party, then the Alliance, to deal with the deficit and sink money into tax cuts that have not benefited the people in society who are most at risk.

Those tax cuts lined the pockets of people who were already affluent and wealthy. They meant a few dollars for working people but they were dollars that were sucked out of essential services. They were dollars that were sucked out of programs that could have established, for example, real accessible national child care programs or a national housing program.

We are at a critical juncture in terms of making a decision and correctly analyzing what the impact has been of the market ideology as it is played out in the federal budget on all Canadians, but particularly Canadians who have suffered in the last decade.

I quote further from the report because it is such an excellent one. An analysis was done by looking at other countries where different choices were made in terms of budgetary priorities and government spending. It points out:

Societies with a narrow gap between rich and poor are characterized by increased quality of life, improved health and higher education levels. We must eliminate the undue bias that all our systems afford the wealthy--education, health, criminal and civil justice, immigration and politics.

I respect the work that is embodied in the report because it gives us a message about what have been the failures in the last decade.

A few days ago there was an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It was signed by about 100 prominent and progressive economists in the country. I will not read the list of people who signed the letter, but it was co-ordinated by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an organization involved annually in developing the alternative federal budget. They applaud the Bank of Canada's recent interest rate cuts, but they also point out:

We also strongly believe that these cuts are not, by themselves, sufficient. We therefore call on the government to enact a mix of appropriate spending and tax measures, with the emphasis on spending, that will produce the greatest fiscal stimulus to employment creation.

The whole idea of job creation and stimulating the economy is something that is critically important because the number of people who have been unemployed has actually risen by about 60,000. There is no question that more people will be facing economic insecurity in the coming months and years.

There is no question that one possible policy instrument that people see emerging, if the federal government chooses to make a progressive decision, is public investment in a national housing program.

There was an op-ed piece in the November 2 Toronto Star by Marcel Lauzière and Andrew Jackson who are with the Canadian Council on Social Development. They highlight and zero in on the incredible inequalities in society in terms of the growing gap between wealthy and poor. They state:

What we need in December is a budget that does something to maintain and create jobs, and improve the lives of the marginalized. How do we achieve this? There is no better candidate than investment in affordable housing.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I spent a few weeks travelling across the country before and during the resumption of parliament. I visited various urban centres: Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. I will be in Montreal tomorrow. I even went as far as Iqaluit and Nunavut. I spoke with people who were experiencing housing affordability problems.

The number one priority of every place I went to and every group I met with was that we should try to convince the provincial or territorial government, but most important the federal government, to make an investment in social housing.

There is an urgent plea from both the labour movement and the Canadian Council on Social Development that a significant federal investment in a national housing strategy would not only produce economic security and create tens of thousands of jobs but would deal with what is now characterized as a housing crisis. We are looking at more than two million Canadians who are facing severe housing problems. This flows from either absolute homelessness and lack of shelter on the street, in effect destitution, or people who are literally one paycheque away from being homeless, whose rents are so high that they do not have enough money to pay for food.

I urge the government not turn a blind eye to the idea that a major investment in social housing is something that would be good for our economy. It would create jobs and meet a real social need. Research that we have done shows that if there were a one time $2 billion investment in social housing we would be able to produce 46,000 new jobs next year. That would increase to 94,000 jobs in five years. The National Housing and Homelessness Network stated that $2 billion could build between 30,000 and 40,000 social housing units.

The government's own agency, CMHC, said that in terms of the demand and the needs that exist we need to produce about 30,000 to 40,000 units of affordable housing every year just to keep pace with demand. That kind of investment would create good union jobs.

Yesterday we were debating softwood lumber crisis. I am from British Columbia. I know full well the impact on small communities and even on urban centres has been devastating as a result of the outrageous duties placed on softwood lumber. If the Government of Canada made a decision to invest in housing, we could use our own resource to build affordable housing for Canadians. There is yet another benefit in terms of the softwood lumber crisis.

According to CMHC each new housing unit creates between three and six full time jobs in total over a five year period. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities argued and put forward some excellent documentation that over the next 10 years we need 20,000 new houses to be built yearly and 10,000 units to be rehabilitated annually. A program such as this would have a very positive effect on our economy.

I will be introducing in the House of Commons a housing bill of rights. I believe it is a basic fundamental right that people have security of shelter.

The government's performance to date in this area has been very disappointing. In the last Liberal red book a promise was made for about $680 million over four years. There is concern that even that commitment will now drop off the table.

Provincial and territorial housing ministers will be meeting at the end of November. There will be a lot of interest and examination of whether or not the federal government will at minimum be committed to that program, or whether it will heed the advice of organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the National Housing and Homelessness Network and look at the provision of an affordable housing strategy as something that can help people and stimulate our economy.

I endorse that idea 100% and urge all Liberal members to look at that kind of plan, which would have a very positive effect both provincially and municipally.

I will also talk about other aspects of the budget the NDP view as very critical. One of those areas is infrastructure. We have a Liberal task force currently working its way across the country and looking at the need for urban infrastructure.

I am from the city of Vancouver where infrastructure is at risk from years of lack of funding. It is critical to have a program of sound public investment in infrastructure, whether it be water filtration upgrading or public transit. There is strong support from Canadians for these critical things.

Canadians have been asked repeatedly in many polls whether they would prefer to have tax cuts or an investment in basic social infrastructure. Time and again they choose social investment because they understand that the quality of local communities and the quality of life actually improve for all people.

It is another significant area which should be a key priority for the government, not just in terms of dealing with major problems in our urban environment but also as a way of meeting our international commitments at Kyoto by financing and supporting public transit.

We do not even think about the subsidization of private vehicle use and highways. It is not part of the balancing of or equating how we direct public funds. There is massive subsidization of our highway system and private automobile. When it comes to public transit, though, we do not see it on the same footing. Yet the benefit of financing and supporting public transit is something that is far greater.

I represent a riding that is made up of a very diverse population. It is a working class riding. People put in a lot of time working at part time jobs. There is a great fear that with the new government in British Columbia there will be a program of attacks on poor and working people and an assault on various social programs. People will be looking to the federal government for leadership, relief and support.

One thing on the agenda in British Columbia is a two tier minimum wage system, something that is completely outrageous. It is a program which would take money away from people working in minimum wage jobs. It would make their lives more difficult and make it difficult for them to make ends meet every month. Gordon Campbell, the new premier, is considering a two tier minimum wage whereby some people would be making $6 an hour and some would get $8 an hour. I find this incredibly offensive.

I bring that to the attention of the House because it is an example of where leadership is required by the federal government for strong investment in a program that would narrow the inequality gap in Canada. If we focus our sights on that and say that it is the true measure of security in our country, we will produce a society that is healthier and more productive. I urge the government to consider the words of these organizations and look at the priorities they have put forward.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the leader of the NDP in the debate today who has spoken eloquently on this issue. The member for Halifax has been present in the House and has put a lot of pressure on the government to come clean on its softwood lumber agenda. She has attended many briefings and was at the NDP federal council meeting on October 14 when we passed an emergency resolution on the issue.

This is an issue that is at the top of the agenda for members from B.C. in terms of expressing a very strong concern about what is taking place with the softwood lumber market.

I represent an urban riding in east Vancouver. There is a perception that this issue affects smaller communities that are dependent on the forestry industry, but there is no question that the forestry industry is an economic driver of urban communities as well. Jobs are affected in Vancouver as well as in smaller communities.

This industry is the largest source of Canada's export earnings. It does about $10 billion in exports. It directly employs 350,000 Canadians and indirectly employs about one million Canadians in over 1,000 communities. It gives us an understanding of the significant impact and devastation taking place right across the country and certainly in British Columbia.

As a result of the very unfair countervailing duties that have been dumped on the industry it is estimated that up to 30,000 jobs will be lost and as many as 90,000 additional jobs will be lost indirectly. This is absolutely staggering. These figures cannot be repeated often enough to understand the magnitude of what we are facing.

In British Columbia alone 15 of 25 mills on the coast have been closed entirely due to the U.S. tariff, throwing about 12,000 people out of work. For example, three Doman mills were closed on Vancouver Island and 400 workers from Cowichan Bay, Ladysmith and Saltair have been put out of work. Hammond Cedar and two value added mills in Maple Ridge have been closed with another 450 workers losing their jobs. This closure has meant that Interfor, one of the major companies, has only 1,000 of its total 3,000 workforce currently employed.

The issue that we have to grapple with and the issue we are confronting the government with is: What is the possible way forward? What is the government's agenda on this issue?

The New Democrats have pressed the government to respond to this issue by making it a priority. It must recognize that it is the workers who need immediate assistance. They are either unemployed now or will be facing unemployment with enormous insecurity and anxiety.

There is nothing in trade laws that would prevent the Canadian government from assisting workers who have been adversely affected. We only have to look at what happened on the east coast when the northern cod stock disappeared. Ottawa assisted displaced workers who were crushed by the collapse of the industry.

We can look at the Mifflin plan and the restructuring that took place subsequent to the Mifflin plan. We had our criticisms about that program, but the Canadian government recognized the priority of what was going on and recognized that there were individual communities, families and workers who needed help.

The government has been considering assistance to the airline and tourism industries as a result of what happened on September 11. We have to recognize that the lumber industry is the backbone of thousands of communities and is a very significant economic factor.

We in the NDP want to say loud and clear to the government that it cannot let the workers bear the brunt of this unfair trade action. It needs to step in immediately.

Today in the House, my colleagues, the member for Churchill and the member for Acadie--Bathurst, asked with the government what support there would be for the workers who have been affected. The response they got was pathetic. The government says that there is EI. Well most workers consider EI to be a joke. They pay into it but they get nothing out of it when they are hurting and need help.

When we confronted the Minister of HRDC today to ask whether she would provide a top up or income support to those workers, we heard some vague grumblings and it was back to EI.

We in the NDP say that is not good enough. It is not just a sellout of our resources in terms of what is taking place with these unfair trade practices but it is also a sellout for workers who are now affected.

It was interesting to note today that other members in the House from other parties were calling for a summit to be held for all the parties that are affected. Members of my party have also raised this matter on other days. In listening to the response from the trade minister, I noticed that he was very reluctant to specifically deal with that issue. It led me to wonder what exactly the government's position was on this.

Does anyone actually understand what the government's position or strategy is for dealing with this?

We know the U.S. has appointed a special envoy. We know the minister apparently had a very nice meeting today. However, when we cut through all the rhetoric, does any of us really have an understanding of the government's plan and of what it is actually going to do?

Having listened to the debate today and in earlier days, I really do not have an understanding on what the government is prepared to do specifically to get us out of the mess, to make this a priority and to help the communities that have been affected.

We in the New Democratic Party want to be very clear and say that it is incumbent upon the government, in working in consultation with opposition parties, to have a game plan. I think have heard other members in the House say that today. It is not just me who is wondering where is the game plan. I think we are all feeling like that.

We want to say that the words “this is a crisis” and “this is a problem” are simply not good enough. We want to know what the government is proposing to do to negotiate, to make this a priority and to make sure that these unfair trade deals are put aside. It needs to negotiate a settlement that will support what has already been proven in international tribunals, that Canada is not dumping into the U.S. market.

I want to put forward a message to the B.C. government. The IWA and other organizations have an enormous concern that as this crisis begins to unfold it would be very easy for this provincial government or another provincial government to be picked off.

We want to say very loudly and clearly again that this is another key reason why the federal government must develop a national response and a national strategy to ensure that, for example, the B.C. government does not completely capitulate to American interests by giving away protection to workers, the tying up of manufacturing to harvest rights or increasing raw log exports.

We are very concerned that while this crisis continues if the federal government does not step in and show the leadership that it needs to show, then we will have provinces, whether it is British Columbia or elsewhere, cutting deals and basically ripping off the workers in those communities.

In closing I want to say that it is good we are having this debate but we want the government to tell us its plan, its strategy to deal with the crisis and where its support is for the workers in the communities.

It is not good enough for the minister to say that he met the CEOs and that he has been in contact with them. The livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people are at stake and we want to know what the government will do to protect those communities.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member's comments expressing the views of her constituents who wanted to see the economy stimulated and jobs being created. I would certainly agree with that.

I was surprised not to hear the member make any comment or give any suggestion indicating that one of the best ways to stimulate our economy is to put money into a housing program. If there were a federal infusion of funds into a national housing program, it would be a huge stimulus to the economy and it would meet a growing social need in Canada. For example, if the government decided that it was a priority to construct 30,000 new homes that would create 94,000 jobs in the next five years.

Is the member committed to the federal government making it a priority in the next federal budget to allocate money to a national housing strategy? I am not talking about the little bits and pieces that we have seen through the homelessness secretariat or from the minister of public works. I am talking about a real national strategy involving the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the federal and provincial governments where we would see a federal commitment to a housing program that would include not for profit social housing. If the government did that, it would provide very good jobs and the real social investment that is needed.