Libby Davies

[Softwood Lumber, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, things cannot get much worse. Up to 30,000 workers in B.C. alone will be forced into unemployment, devastating small communities and local businesses. This is the real and terrible impact on Canada's $10 billion softwood lumber industry, 60% of it in B.C., as a result of the new U.S. duties that are blasting our economy.

It is outrageous that the U.S. government will not play by its own rules and ignores that Canada has won three rulings from international tribunals which agree that Canada is not dumping into U.S. markets.

We call again for the federal government to negotiate fair and unrestricted access for softwood lumber entering the U.S. We urge the government again to commit to an income support program for workers hit by this crisis. We need a national solution, not one that allows individual cave-ins by B.C. or any other province.

The NDP urges the government in every possible way to make resolution of this crisis an immediate priority. People's livelihoods depend on it.

[Prebudget Consultation, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle on a very excellent presentation. It called on the government to show the kind of vision, transparency and scope that we need to look for in a federal budget both internationally and nationally. He laid out the very critical need to build not only our physical infrastructure but also our social infrastructure. We have built up a social deficit as a result of successive cutbacks.

The member stated that we need to invest in training and education and that we need to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to all young people across Canada without the burden of a massive debt. Student debt load has risen enormously. We must have accessible post-secondary education if we expect to perform in the future as a knowledge based economy. Would the hon. member care to comment on that?

[International Aid, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard that Canada has given $16 million for refugee aid to Afghanistan. However, in reality the UNHCR has received $1.19 million, less than what Angelina Jolie has personally donated, by the way.

Canada has now dropped from 10th to 17th place in overseas aid, a pretty dismal record. The Canadian Council for International Cooperation said that Canada needs to increase its aid by at least $400 million for four years.

Will the Minister of Finance make that commitment for an increase as part of Canada's international obligation to people desperately in need?

[Poverty, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, federal New Democrats stand in support and solidarity with Louise Gosselin and the groups who are intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada today to argue that poor Canadians have the right to adequate levels of social assistance.

It is appalling that the federal government is not intervening in this historic case to defend social and economic rights for Canadians and that four provinces, including unfortunately my own province of British Columbia, are lining up to speak against it.

Five million Canadians live below the poverty line and over two million Canadians do not have adequate shelter and housing. This is a shameful record when Canada clearly has the wealth, resources and international obligation to uphold social and economic rights.

The federal government cannot ignore this case. Nor can the fundamental issue of growing income inequality and poverty in Canada be ignored. We call on the Minister of Justice and the federal government to fulfill their duty under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by ensuring that poor Canadians have economic security and dignity.

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas for bringing forward this issue. It is an historic day because we are debating in the House of Commons the issue of same sex marriage.

I recognize the outstanding, tireless and very passionate efforts of my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas. He has been an advocate for all human rights as well as equality for gays and lesbians in Canada and around the world for many years. His work in bringing this issue forward today so we can debate the bill and hopefully move forward is something that is very important.

I listened carefully to the debate in the House. It was disturbing to hear some of the members who spoke in opposition to the bill because the reasons and excuses they came up with were simply indefensible. At the end of the day it comes down to this: we either have equality in the country or we do not. We cannot have half equality.

Bill C-23 was a good piece of legislation in as far as it went. It did not really deal with the issue of equality in terms of marriage. Therefore I feel very strongly about the importance of the bill. We heard arguments that too many laws would have to be changed and that somehow we could not do anything because Canada was based on common law. These were all weak excuses that really did not deal with the fundamental issue before us: equality for gays and lesbians.

I was involved with Bruce Eriksen for 24 years in a common law relationship. During the course of that relationship I never opposed or denied the right of heterosexual couples to have the choice to marry. I am now involved in a same sex relationship. I do not deny or oppose anyone's choice either to be involved in a common law relationship or a relationship that is affirmed by marriage. That is really what the debate is about today.

We must be careful that we do not go down the road of hypocrisy. We heard members say that they do not support discrimination against gays and lesbians. If that is correct we must be true to what the charter says. One of the unfortunate things is that so much legislation comes about because of litigation, forcing people through the courts.

It would be preferable if parliament, as the federal body in the country that has the leadership and mandate to deal with issues like this, would send a clear signal that equality includes the right of gays and lesbians to marry if they so choose.

I hope there are other members of the House who will put aside their prejudice and discrimination and will recognize that if they support the charter and equality then they will support the bill. They will make sure people are not forced into incredible litigation when it is an issue that should be decided by the House of Commons.

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question but let us not forget our history. In the election of 1988 more Canadians voted against the beginning of the free trade era than voted in favour.

If the hon. member would care to look at the history of his own party he would probably remember that the party of whose government he is a part was opposed to the original free trade agreement. If we want to talk about democratic expression, a majority of Canadians voted for members of parliament and parties that were opposed to that agreement.

Since that time, if we look at information that came out before the summit of the Americas, there has been growing opposition from Canadians to what these trade agreements represent. There is a growing realization and understanding that these trade agreements are nothing more than huge giveaways to multinational corporations that are able to move capital across borders and disregard the rights of workers, the environment or social conditions.

The member says that there are all these sidebar agreements. The sidebar agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. The CCRALC does not oblige a government to enact or maintain labour laws of a high standard. It only requires that a government enforce the labour laws it enacts.

When the minister was in central America earlier this year he was quoted in the local press as promising that Canada would not use environmental and labour legislation as a barrier to trade deals.

We must ask what the government's real agenda is in this regard. Is it to raise the standard of living for people in these countries or is it to confer enormous rights on the corporations and leave people at the mercy of the employers?

[Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to continue the debate where my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas left off on Bill C-32, an act to implement the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Costa Rica.

In listening to the debate earlier I felt offended that members of the Canadian Alliance lobbed at the members of NDP that somehow we were nitpicking and attaching our debate to small things, such as defending the rights of workers, whether they were in Costa Rica, Canada or any other country. As the debate continued, the parliamentary secretary wanted to know why the NDP was opposed to helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Presumably he meant Costa Rica.

The NDP is absolutely in favour of helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere. In fact, this party has had a very proud and long tradition of promoting international solidarity, economic investment and aid and development. We have pressed the government to meet its commitments through the red book and in other areas over many years.

However the debate today is really about who this trade agreement will help. I would challenge the parliamentary secretary to produce the evidence as to how this particular free trade agreement will help poor people in Costa Rica or, for that matter, workers in Canada.

Like other members in the House, I have also received information from workers and management from Rogers Sugar which is located in my riding of Vancouver East. I want to tell members of the House, particularly the government members, that there is a huge concern about the impact of this trade agreement on Canadian companies and the sugar industry.

In June of this year I met with a joint delegation of labour and management representatives from Rogers Sugar. Anyone who knows about labour management issues will know that it is not usual for labour and management to come together. However in this case it was a joint delegation because the several hundred people who work at the plants as well as the management of Rogers Sugar are very concerned about the impact of this agreement.

In fact when they wrote the Prime Minister to express their concern they received the following response. In a letter dated April 26, the Prime Minister said that in any free trade negotiation it was necessary for each side to consider compromises in the interest of reaching an agreement which was fair overall. In the case of Costa Rica, Canada recognized that the differences in the level of development of our two countries would need to be reflected in the final agreement.

He then went on to say that the agreement negotiated provided opportunities for exporters in both countries to explore new markets, including opportunities for some Canadian sugar exporters to sell to Costa Rica.

This is absolutely contrary to the evidence and information that has come before us. The fact is that if the tariff were eliminated, Canadian refineries would be exposed to competition from Costa Rican refineries without the prospect of better access to that market for our exporters, contrary to what the Prime Minister said.

The reality is there is virtually no market for refined sugar in Costa Rica or elsewhere in central America. Granting duty free entry for refined sugar from Costa Rica and we believe, eventually from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and especially Guatemala, will end up eliminating a significant portion of a long-standing Canadian industry. We have to be incredibly concerned about that.

If we could look at what the NDP has articulated in its position, it is precisely because of this race to the bottom. It is another example of the lowest common denominator approach that opens the door to job flight from countries, such as Canada, where there are tougher, more progressive legislation.

It is not just about protecting jobs in Canada, although that is very important. It is also about protecting and encouraging high quality jobs in other parts of the world. We have heard a lot of debate today in the House about how this agreement will lift people out of poverty. We heard from the Alliance that globalization has moved people out of poverty. We heard that the trickle down theory is working very well.

Again, there is ample evidence to suggest that these trade agreements have done nothing to improve the lives of working people. These trade agreements have done nothing to improve the quality of our environment or the quality of social conditions that exist in many countries.

Members of the NDP take a very principled stand. This is not about being opposed to trade agreements per se on any grounds. It is about being in favour of trade agreements that protect our environment, that protect quality social conditions for people and that enshrine and protect worker rights.

To go back to the situation in Costa Rica, because that is the agreement before us, one of the things we should be concerned about is the development of export processing zones in Costa Rica, of which there are nine. One thing that is taking place, particularly in the textile industry, is that companies increasingly are hiring workers at home where they are not protected by labour laws nor are they covered by social security, holidays or job security.

We have to ask critically whether the agreement actually is helping one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere or whether it is conferring greater rights for greater profits for large corporations. Basically the workers get left behind at home with absolutely no protection.

There is information on the record, and it is available for any member to see, that private sector employers have ignored the ILO recommendations that workers, particularly in the private sector, have been denied the right to organize. They have been denied the right to basic, safe working conditions. They have been denied the right to decent wages.

It becomes very clear that the trade agreement is not in the interests of poor people in those countries. It is not in the interests of protecting our environment. I feel proud that as an NDP caucus we understand this and stand in solidarity with international labour movements, with the labour movement in Canada and with NGOs that have done analysis on this and have participated in things like the people's summit at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City and the people's summit in Vancouver at the APEC conference.

It is through those forums that the issues affecting workers have come to the forefront. As we know, that debate has not taken place in the House. We raise day after day the fact that the summit of the Americas was not brought forward to the House for any kind of democratic vote. These agreements affect all of us. They affect our local communities and the workers in my riding of East Vancouver but the House has not participated in any kind of democratic vote about whether or not we should be adopting the FTAA for example.

The NDP is not nitpicking. The NDP is not opposing the agreement because we are opposed to free trade or any trade agreement. We are opposing this agreement because we see it as nothing more than continuing the sellout of Canada. We see it as a continuation of a policy from the government that actually is abandoning the basic human rights and the basic human dignity of workers in Costa Rica.

I am very glad that the workers I met with from Rogers Sugar understood that they were standing in support of the workers in Costa Rica. They did not see it as just an issue of protecting their jobs and their turf. They understood that this race to the bottom not only affected them but also the workers in those other countries.

I am glad the NDP is opposing this trade agreement. It is a bad trade agreement both for workers in Canada and for workers in those countries.

[Housing, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a federal investment in social housing in the order of 30,000 to 40,000 units, which is what every national group agrees is needed, will produce 46,000 jobs immediately, increasing to 90,000 jobs in five years.

I would like to ask the finance minister now that he has finally agreed to a budget, first, will he honour his commitment to poor Canadians and not leave them out in the cold, and will he commit to such a housing program not only to help people who are homeless or poorly housed but as a sound economic investment in the country with good jobs?

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the hon. member has come back from the People's Republic of China and the APEC conference with his head full of corporate information about globalization and that it is good for everyone. I have heard this so often at committees, from the pharmaceutical companies that are pushing the idea of intellectual property rights and that this is somehow lifting people out of poverty.

If the hon. member had taken the time, whether it was in Quebec City at the summit of the Americas, or at APEC when it was in Vancouver a few years ago, or now in the People's Republic of China, to attend the parallel conference and hear from workers about impact of corporate globalization, he would know that the NDP is not nitpicking, or as he said, “small little things”. We are defending the fact that workers have established, through these agreements, virtually no rights. Now we are looking at trade agreements, particularly the one before us today, that will do nothing to enforce and ensure the rights of workers in Costa Rica, or other countries where these agreements exist, to the basic human rights and labour rights to organize, to work in livable and decent conditions, to speak out and to associate. None of these things properly exist.

I am really offended that the member would somehow consider this to be nitpicking. He needs to go and do his homework. He needs to hear from worker organizations, both international and national. He needs to hear the very deep concerns that are being registered about these agreements and how they absolutely do not provide any adequate measures to protect workers in other countries.

I would ask the member to respond to that. Did he bother to take the time to find that out when he was at the APEC conference?

[Human Rights, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, very shortly the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the Gosselin case, probably the most significant test of the charter of rights involving the rights of four people to adequate food, security and housing.

It is hard to believe that the federal government is not intervening to defend the vision of a just society that supports economic and social rights to which Canada has signed internationally.

Will the Minister of Justice review this case and intervene positively, including support for the provinces, so that no Canadian has to live the way Louise Gosselin was forced to live? Will the minister respond to that?