Libby Davies

[Income Tax Act, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-222.

I congratulate the member for having brought the bill forward in the last parliament and for having gained such strong support from all sides of the House. The New Democratic Party supported the earlier bill and we will support the new version of the bill. In fact my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst introduced a similar motion in the House.

The basic principle of the bill is about valuing people's work. We should be supportive of the work that mechanics do. They should legitimately be allowed to deduct the tools of their trade as an expense. It is the principle of fairness and of recognizing the importance of this one type of work.

Not everybody can afford an automobile but most of us do rely on automobiles to drive us to different locations. However, we do not really value the work that goes into maintaining those automobiles. Auto mechanics have a thankless task.

We like to complain about auto mechanics and the cost of repairs. Sometimes people do get ripped off but we are talking about an area of work that is highly skilled. Mechanics require an enormous amount of training and initiative in terms of keeping abreast of technological advances in the automobile industry.

My colleague from the Bloc mentioned that many auto mechanics do not make a lot of money. It is not exactly the most highly paid and lucrative job out there. It is very important that we look at this kind of work and recognize that there is a monetary expense involved for auto mechanics. They do not have the advantage, as do some other sectors, of being able to claim the tools of their trade as an expense.

The bill is not only about valuing people's work, it is also about fair taxation. Our tax system is a crazy maze. Most people feel very intimidated by a system that has become incredibly complex but most people understand instinctively, although our system is a progressive tax system, that the less money one earns the worst break one gets.

We have situations where corporate executives can write off all kinds of expenses that are considered to be legitimate expenses of business or employment. Buying hockey tickets, fancy dinners or other kinds of things for entertainment are considered essential costs of a corporate executive of doing business and are recognized by our taxation system. At the other end of the spectrum, when looking at the work of an auto mechanic, no such recognition is provided.

When I was first elected in 1997 I received a number of letters from auto mechanics in east Vancouver. We have a number of successful car dealerships just at the edge of my riding. I received a number of letters from skilled auto mechanics regarding the unfairness in the tax system and the fact that they could not claim their tools which were to them a fair and legitimate expense.

The bill is a very good initiative and an good example of what a positive contribution private member's bills can make in the House. We may not be able to solve the problems of the whole world but we can bring specific concerns forward for debate, seek the support of other members of the House and actually get them approved.

Not only is this a good bill but it is a good example of how we can cut across party lines and actually support a small but very reasonable initiative.

The New Democratic Party most wholeheartedly supports this initiative. We believe it is important to recognize the work that auto mechanics do. The small break they would get as a result of this bill being passed is important to those people. It would not change the total scheme of things. I do not think it would upset any balance. It could be seen as part of a direction to support the idea of fair taxation, which is taxation is based on ability to pay. It is based on the idea that a tax system should be progressive and certainly there are major issues within our tax system that we can hold up as examples of great inequities within the system.

Another constituent of mine brought forward the example of a pensioner or someone with a very low income who is sent a shortened income tax form, even shorter than the regular one. I think it is called a TS1A. If a pensioner or someone on a low income happens to make a political contribution, as many pensioners do, the form itself does not actually contain the appropriate line for the contribution. It has to be put somewhere else. As a result anyone making a $100 contribution would end up getting a credit of only $17 whereas those using the regular tax form would get a full credit of $58.

I bring this forward because to me it is just another example of practices that have gone on within the system. Maybe they go on unnoticed. No one pays attention to them. They are actually discriminatory. They do not recognize that in the case of the pensioner or low income person making a political contribution, the person actually gets ripped off by the tax system relative to those of us who fill out the full length form.

I think the motion is along those lines in terms of wanting to make a small change that will provide some recognition and value regarding the real cost of tools for this work.

I congratulate the member for continuing to press the matter in the House of Commons and for not giving up. It is sometimes through these small advances that working people get a better break. I would hope that all auto mechanics in Quebec, in my province of British Columbia and in other places in Canada would have the benefit of what would come from the approval of this bill.

We would certainly encourage the government to actually translate the bill into the necessary tax system change. I think most people anticipate that the bill would be approved and I thank the member for bringing it forward. All of us in the New Democratic caucus support his initiative in the bill.

[Government Of Canada, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the much touted infrastructure program has everything in it but the kitchen sink. With no funds to match, I might add, municipalities are forced into the impossible situation of having to choose between housing, public transit or clean water.

I will ask again. If the government is committed to the sustainability of our cities and infrastructure, why is there not a real plan instead of just another task force? Where is the plan to do that over a long period of time?

[Government Of Canada, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all remember the last great Liberal task force on western alienation. That really nipped the problem in the bud, did it not? Now we have one on urban affairs. Meanwhile, the infrastructure in our cities is crumbling as municipalities try to cope with essential services such as public transit, clean water, sewage treatment and housing.

Why will the Minister of the Environment not commit to a real plan of action to help our municipalities with sustainable development instead of hiding behind yet another useless Liberal task force.

[Iraq, May 10th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to wholeheartedly support the motion brought forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

The work of the member for Burnaby—Douglas has been outstanding, not just on this issue but also in understanding and promoting international human rights. He speaks with a great sense of hope for people in Canada who seek an alternative to Canada's foreign policy. The member has been a beam of light for a lot of people in the work that he has undertaken.

I listened with great sadness as he described his personal visit to Iraq and what he encountered while there.

Members in the House and Canadian enjoy the basic necessities of life, although there are people in this country who live in poverty. However what is happening to the people of Iraq is something that is truly horrifying.

I listened to the debate and was quite alarmed at what I heard. The member who spoke for the government side and the member who spoke for the Canadian Alliance were both members of the committee and, as we heard from the member for Burnaby—Douglas, were part of the unanimous report that came from that committee which sought to have these sanctions removed.

It quite alarming that in a committee members can somehow find the courage and the reason to see the absolute horror and devastation of what has happened with the sanctions, yet on another day in the House somehow be in favour of them. In fact the member for the Alliance characterized the motion as being naive. I am quite surprised by that. If we look at the impact of these sanctions, which have been in place for over a decade, on a civilian population, we see nothing less than the total destruction of a civil society.

If we followed the Alliance member's reasoning and logic, if we can call it a logic, then for the net result what would be success in the eyes of that member? Would it be that every child has died? Would it be that 50% of the population of children under five have died? The logic of what is being presented is actually illogical.

I take issue with the fact that, as we have heard, the target of the sanctions is Saddam Hussein. If that is so, then there has to be an agreement that the goal of those sanctions has been a failure. Here we are 10 years later and the guy is still in power. Meanwhile the civil society, the infrastructure, the hospitals, the health care, the water system and everything has been totally destroyed. I would say to those who have been proponents of this kind of course of action and this kind of foreign policy that this has been an abject failure.

In my community of Vancouver East, and in Vancouver generally, I have received many letters and phone calls from individual constituents who have been horrified and outraged at the destruction these sanctions have caused the people of Iraq.

I have personally attended rallies, vigils and meetings. I know that some of the real activists in Vancouver, people like Linda Morgan who was very involved in organizing the delegation that went to Iraq last year, are very committed to an international campaign of solidarity with people from other countries to draw attention to what is taking place in this country. As a Canadian member of parliament, I feel ashamed that our government has so blindly followed this sanction policy for so many years.

Let us be clear about what the motion before us today says. It does not say that Canada should take unilateral action. It does not say that Canada should just strike out on its own. It says that the Canadian government should lead the efforts at the United Nations to lift economic sanctions. There are many Canadians who would see that as a positive, hopeful and powerful role for the government to play rather than standing by and watching the devastation take place.

I listened to the news the other day to hear what was going on, as we all do every day. I made note that the Pope has now called for lifting of the sanctions. I believe there is a growing consciousness globally that if this is what we have sunk to as an international community, if the lowest common denominator of foreign policy is to basically impose hunger, famine, lack of medical supplies, lack of education, lack of clean water and if this is what foreign policy has come to, then where are we in terms of an international community?

As Canadians we should pause and reflect about our complicity in these sanctions. I urge members on the government side, particularly those members who are part of the foreign affairs committee and who apparently supported the lifting of the sanctions, to think about what this government policy is doing.

It seems to me that historically after a conflict or war there is often a period of reconciliation where the international community comes together to rebuild from the devastation of war. Yet in this situation not only was there a war that was horrific, and we could argue that another day in terms of what that was all about, but another war has unfolded, a war that has been even more devastating and that has been going on now for 10 years, which is the war of these sanctions.

Therefore, I feel a sense of deep tragedy about what has taken place here. I hope the motion today will help draw attention to the plight of the Iraqi people and to some of the very credible reports which have been produced by the international community such as UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders and many others who have witnessed firsthand what has happened and have given evidence to their witness of that.

Another point I would like to make is that the member from the Canadian Alliance made an outrageous statement that the Arab summit was not in favour of lifting the sanctions, which was absolutely not the case. That is totally false.

In fact, the Amman Declaration of March 28, from the 13th Arab summit, clearly stated:

We call for lifting the sanctions on Iraq and for dealing with the humanitarian issues pertaining to Iraq, Kuwaiti and other prisoners of war according to the principles of our religion and national heritage.

Therefore, the Alliance member was clearly false in his assertion.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for bringing forward this issue again; a sane idea, a saner policy for a humane world where we do not destroy a civil society because we are trying to get at one person.

I hope the members of this House will consider this motion and, like the local and national organizations who have worked so hard, put pressure on our Canadian government to convince it to be part of an effort to lift these sanctions.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill S-16. The New Democratic Party supported Bill C-22 in the previous parliament, which was approved and received royal assent. We voiced a number of concerns as it went through committee stage and amendments. We are glad to see that some of those concerns are being addressed in Bill S-16.

Members of the NDP like other members of the House are extremely concerned about the impact of organized crime on our local communities and across the country. There is no question that it is something that is very sophisticated. It is very pervasive and has a huge impact on many people's lives.

Personally, as well as in terms of financial institutions and various businesses, we are all very familiar with cases that do come to public light. They give us a glimpse of the kind of operation that exists outside the law in terms of money laundering, the profits from organized crime and how they are dealt with.

For most people it is a fairly frightening glimpse when we look at a system that is so complex. As in previous legislation the attempts in this legislation to deal with that sophistication and to find the appropriate mechanisms to track where money is flowing, where the proceeds of organized crime are coming from, is very important.

The NDP put forward some concerns about the original bill. In any legislation there has to be a balance between a reasonable right and invasion of privacy. There must be an understanding that the power of the state is not absolute. When a new agency is created with far reaching powers we have to be very careful about how it is set up.

For example, before Bill C-22 was approved we and a number of witnesses who came forward to debate the bill expressed concerns about whether or not there was potential for charter of rights violations, that the guarantees of reasonable search and seizure appeared to be at risk.

We were also very concerned about the possible pressures there would be on consumers. Needless to say, there would probably be a significant cost in setting up any sort of regime to track and communicate suspicious transactions. I do not know if that has been spelled out, but it seems to me that it would be enormous in terms of what the responsibilities would be for financial institutions and how that would get passed on to law abiding consumers.

Members of the NDP were also very concerned about the fact that the bill did not address what is often referred to as white collar crimes or technology based crimes. Unfortunately this is a huge area that is booming. We are all very familiar that the growth of the Internet and computers in general, credit card fraud, telephone fraud, stock market manipulation and computer break-ins are all things that can be characterized as technology based crimes or white collar crimes. There is no question that there is a very serious element within that which is perpetrated by organized crime. It seems to us that the original bill did not and the legislation before us today does not adequately address the concerns that surely must be addressed in terms of technology based crimes.

In the debate today I heard a number of members talk about different elements of organized crime and the impact they have. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke about the drug trade and its human impact. I will spend a couple of minutes speaking about that as well because it strikes me that there is a contradiction.

On the one hand, as we should, we go to great lengths to deal with a legal apparatus and the setting up of a new agency, FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, as it is called, and what a mouthful that is. We go to great lengths to set up a very elaborate system for tracking suspicious transactions, trying to trace what has happened and making sure that there is adequate reporting.

On the other side of that coin in terms of organized crime and the billions of dollars that are generated illegally through drug trafficking and drug use and the profits that are made, we do not pay enough attention to the human costs that are very clearly evident on our streets, in urban centres and even in smaller communities across Canada. I have only to look at my own riding of Vancouver East to see the devastation that happens in an environment where illegal drug activity is a huge underground economy.

I believe, and I certainly would echo the comments from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, that we have to pay attention to that human side. We have to recognize that in some respects it is the illegality of those substances, heroin or crack cocaine or other substances, that drives this underground market and in effect criminalizes addicts when they are on the street with very few resources. We end up with a community where people are literally dying on the streets from overdoses.

It strikes me as a horrible irony that while on the one hand we can somehow relate to this issue from a legislative point of view by setting up this centre, on the other we cannot relate to this issue from a human point of view and take the actions that are necessary to actually reduce the harm of what is happening on our streets because of these illegal substances.

I would also add that we need a saner, more humane approach to drug use in Canada and we need to be seriously willing to reform Canada's drug laws, which have not been reformed for decades. We have had Senate hearings. We have had debates in the past where some of these issues have been debated very seriously, but not in recent times. If we took the time to do that I believe we would go a long way toward dealing with some of the causes of the devastation we see on our streets. We could in fact look at the issue of how organized crime is being driven by this very lucrative business of drug use.

We could look to the experience of what is happening in Europe, where the approach has been to medicalize drug use and addiction instead of criminalizing people. The approach has been to try to remove the harm from buying drugs on the street. Not only has there been a huge financial saving in health care costs and judicial costs, but lives have been saved as well.

I wanted to make that point because it seems to me that we are missing the boat unless we look at the total picture. We cannot just say that all this money is coming from organized crime and a lot of it is coming from drugs unless we are willing to examine Canada's drug policies and recognize that they need to be seriously reformed.

For example, even with marijuana we see the stories about grow operations in the papers all the time. In east Vancouver there are media reports of various grow busts taking place. We are talking about multimillion dollar operations. It seems to me that if we had the courage to examine our drug policy laws and to seriously look at reform of those laws we would be going a long way in terms of removing the incentive and the huge opening that exists for organized crime to become a part of the underground economy. That is a very important aspect of the debate.

In regard to the bill before us today, I did want to say that the NDP certainly supports the amendments that are contained in the bill as a result of the previous bill, Bill C-22. We support them in principle. Important questions were raised as a result of Bill C-22. It is notable that there has been a sort of second look based on the issues raised previously, for example, knowing how long this new centre would be able to retain the information it collects and whether there are issues in terms of the balance between the right to retain information or dispose of it.

Another question was about when and how that information would be disposed of. If an agency is created, for how long does it have a right to have that information and in which manner can it be disposed of? If information is to be disclosed to law enforcement authorities, how should that be done? Those issues needed to be more clearly spelled out and we certainly feel that the present legislation goes some distance to addressing those concerns put forward by witnesses and by different parties in the House.

In conclusion, at this time we in the NDP are pleased to continue our support in principle. We think it is an important bill. It has obviously had strong support within the House. It is always good to have a second look based on evidence from witnesses to make sure that the bill is fine tuned to address concerns put forward.

I hope as the debate continues that the government will pay attention to the concerns that are still being expressed. It seems to me that there is strong general support but some areas still need to be looked at.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Churchill for her very eloquent remarks. She outlined very well some of the real problems that Canadian consumers, citizens and active participants in society face when it comes to dealing with megacorporations. A lot of people feel powerless. They feel like they are individuals taking on a massive structure which by its very nature is very undemocratic.

The hon. member for Churchill has provided some very good evidence of some of the problems facing us in terms of dealing with these very undemocratic structures.

The member gave the example of the Westray disaster and the tragic deaths that occurred there nine years ago. The fact that the government has not taken any action is regrettable and again another indication of how this part of our society, these corporations and massive institutions, has been allowed to get off scot-free. They operate in a realm where most of us feel like we have very little recourse to deal with them. We could go through the judicial system, which is hugely expensive, but we would be up against a corporation that has very deep pockets.

I would like the member to comment further on the growing movement of consumers who are taking action into their own hands. Consumers say that they will make choices about what they do. They will not use their hard earned dollars to purchase goods or services from corporations that are blatant in terms of their disregard of human rights, the environment or the way they treat women or minorities. This movement is growing very strong in Canada. Would the member agree with that?

[Patent Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly respond. Perhaps the member did not listen to the whole debate. I clearly articulated the position of the NDP, which is not that we are somehow opposed to all trade. We are talking about the need to create trade deals that have fair rules attached to them. That is the essential point.

As far as the member's second point is concerned, unfortunately it seems like he has really bought the line of the pharmaceutical companies. Yes, we need research to be done, but why do we need to create so many restrictions which allow them to monopolize an industry and create a scenario whereby people cannot afford to pay for their drugs? This is the problem we face.

[Patent Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate and welcome the comments from the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. However the member knows full well that the issue here is not trade just as a word. Trade has existed for thousands of years among peoples whether they were part of a nation or not. Trade is a part of who we are as human beings. The issue we are debating through this legislation and under things like the FTAA is the issue of the rules that are created around those trade agreements.

For example, there are rules that create such restrictive policies around intellectual property rights that we end up with a piece of legislation such as this which will actually deny people access to affordable drugs in Canada. Surely that is what the debate is about. Let us not send up smokescreens and say the NDP is against trade.

If the hon. member has listened to any of the debates in the House he will know that the NDP has advanced a position on a policy of fair trade based on respecting the dignity and rights of all people. The NDP has a policy of trade that respects the authority of parliament to make decisions in the public interest.

I will say again that this piece of legislation is the complete opposite of that. The House is debating the legislation because the WTO, and who the heck is that, has dictated that it shall be done. Is that not wrong? I believe it is.

[Patent Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the member for Churchill and the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

Barely two weeks ago we were in Quebec City with 60,000, 70,000 or maybe even 80,000 people marching for democracy. They were trying to take down the wall and trying to be heard. I think it is important to note that the central issue underlying that process was about defending our democratic system. It was about defending the right of democratically elected parliaments, legislatures or even municipal governments, to uphold the public interest and to make decisions that benefit the public interest.

I take note of what happened in Quebec City because the opposition to the FTAA is directly related to the debate we are having in the House today on Bill S-17 and the drug patent law. We have probably the clearest example of the tail wagging the dog.

We have the Government of Canada rushing around to change its legislation to meet what? Is it something based on public debate and discourse in the country? No. It is something based on a World Trade Organization tribunal ruling.

There is the evidence of what we are up against in the country as a result of the capitulation by the government to international trade agreements that are literally, as my colleague from Churchill said, bleeding away not just people's ability to access prescription drugs in a reasonable and affordable way, but bleeding away our ability to make decisions about our country, decisions that affect how Canadians live, our quality of life and in whose interests we speak in the House.

I feel very strongly that I need to say loud and clear to Canadians that every single member of the New Democratic Party was in Quebec City marching for democracy and upholding the public interest, and we are in the House today to fight the bill. The NDP is the only party in parliament to do this, because we in our party understand that the bill is very wrong.

We have heard some of the history of the bill. It is not just something that has popped up out of the blue in the last few months. It goes back to 1987 and the glorious days of the Mulroney government, which started changing the laws to favour these massive pharmaceutical companies by changing the patent rules.

Let us be very clear about this. It is about creating legislation that favours the profit making interests of very large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of providing accessible, generic prescriptions and drugs to Canadians. This is now taking place on a global scale.

That happened in 1987. As has been so eloquently pointed out by my colleagues, it is very sad to see the hypocrisy that takes place. The mighty Liberals who took on the Mulroney government in 1987 and again in 1992 seemed to understand that those laws, Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 in those days, were a great threat to our public health care system and to Canadians' accessibility to affordable drugs.

Where are the Liberals on this issue now? They are not even neutral on the question. They have completely come around 360° and are now peddling the interests of those same pharmaceutical companies that 10 years ago they were speaking against. Then years ago they clearly outlined their concerns about this.

A few weeks ago before the summit of the Americas in Quebec City, I attended the foreign affairs committee meeting. The witnesses who came forward spoke directly to the issue of intellectual property rights, as they are called, and the so-called rights of these companies to restrict access to the generic versions of their drugs.

At that committee I heard a man speak. I forget his name. He was very smooth. He was the chief spokesperson for the pharmaceutical association. He had the gall to say that trade agreements like the FTAA and the orders that come from the WTO, which prompted this legislation, improve the quality of life for all people around the globe, that intellectual property rights and trade agreements actually improve quality of life.

I sat there thinking how far removed from the truth that was. If anyone needs evidence of that, we have only to look at what took place in South Africa, where 39 pharmaceutical companies were actually forced, through public pressure, to withdraw their claims against the South African government.

Millions of people who live in sub-Saharan Africa are dying of HIV and AIDS. Millions of people in Latin America or Central America and around the globe are desperately in need of essential medicines, not just in terms of HIV and AIDS but for things like TB or hepatitis C. These people understand that these trade agreements are not about improving the quality of life for ordinary people. They are not about improving the quality of life for poor people or people who are sick. This is about conferring greater concentrated power to those multinational corporations and the government is allowing to happen through the bill.

That is why we stand today in absolute opposition to what is taking place. I would like to point out to Canadians that the consequences of what would happen because of the bill are very dire indeed. What would the consequences be? Extending the patent from the current 17 years, which is bad enough, to 20 years, as well as prohibiting generic companies from stockpiling drugs, means that the most likely thing that would happen would undoubtedly be a dramatic increase in prescription and drug prices for Canadians. There is no question about that.

As this debate continues and the issue continues to unfold, we in the New Democratic Party have a very great resolve to work with other organizations, the labour movement, the Council of Canadians, environmental groups and seniors' groups, who understand what is really at stake here. We have a role to play in parliament in trying to defeat this kind of legislation, but we also have a role in working with a broader community and bringing pressure to bear.

Maybe one day we will get to the point where we have the kind of mobilization that took place in South Africa in defeating the multinational corporations who were seeking litigation to prevent people from accessing essential medicines. Maybe one day we will see that type of challenge in Canada. At the very least today, we have to stand in opposition to this legislation. We think it is bad legislation and is nothing more than conferring greater concentrations of power and profit to fewer multinational corporations.

Surely that cannot be in the public interest. I defy any member of the House to stand up and tell us how this can be characterized as being in the public interest. The evidence, going back to 1987 and 1992 and now to what has happened with the FTAA, tells us that the opposite is true, that this is a bad piece of legislation. It must be defeated, as must these international trade agreements that undermine the ability of our governments to make the very kinds of decisions that would ensure this legislation would not go ahead.

[Housing, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for bringing the motion forward for debate. Like the hon. member, I am a member from British Columbia. I know from personal experience, in speaking with my constituents and visiting homes in east Vancouver, the devastation that has been caused by leaky condos.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary speak on behalf of the government to the motion. I cannot help but comment on the absurdity of the government saying that it is sympathetic to the inconvenience of owning a leaky condo. We are not talking about inconvenience. We are talking about families who have gone into bankruptcy, families who could not sell their apartments for a dime. Everybody knows they are leaky condos; they have put plastic and awnings on the outside. These families know they will never be able to get rid of them.

We are not talking about an inconvenience when these people use all their RRSPs, beg and borrow at the bank, and throw their life savings into trying to repair their condos. It causes sleepless nights and incredible anxiety because they are dealing with the most important purchase they have ever made. British Columbians are facing a billion dollar tragedy.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam outlined some of the issues very well. I support his motion. I am very proud to say that the provincial government of B.C. took the issue very seriously. It set up a public inquiry, headed by former premier and former member of parliament Dave Barrett.

They held exhaustive public hearings. They tried to get to the root causes of what had caused this problem in condominiums and, I should mention, in federally funded co-ops. They have also experienced the same problem.

In reading through the volumes of reports of the Barrett commission, we see that the B.C. government did come forward with very proactive and positive measures to provide relief to homeowners, who were suffering terribly. For example, the provincial government provided PST relief. The province provided about $100 million in no interest loans. The homeowner protection office has been operating since October 1998. There are very tough new licensing requirements for developers and contractors. The province even approved $30 million in interest free loans for federally funded co-ops because the federal government would not do anything. In fact, the province has made extensive recommendations and has acted on them to provide some assistance.

It is quite appalling to know that there has been virtually no response from the federal government. I really take offence to the suggestion on the other side from the government that because this is “a regional issue” it does not qualify for the kind of relief called for in the motion.

Anyone who thinks this issue of leaky condos, leaky co-ops and building envelope failure is contained to this one province should think again, because this issue is now cropping up in other communities across Canada. The idea that because it is regional somehow people will not qualify for the kind of help they need is an idea I find offensive.

I want to say that my colleague, the member of parliament from Burnaby—Willingdon, the former member of parliament from Kamloops, and three members from the NDP in British Columbia wrote time and time again to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

In one of the many letters we wrote to him, we told him that the Barrett commission had urged the provincial and federal levels of government to provide compensation and had further recommended that the federal government ensure that CMHC provide assistance as well as tax relief on repairs. Ironically, though, we told him, because the federal government rejected the recommendations that would allow homeowners to repay their RRSPs, the government was actually making money off people who were forced to liquidate their RRSPs to pay for repairs.

It is just so insulting to people to have to withdraw their life savings and then find out that they are being taxed on those savings. The federal government is actually making money off this tragedy of people having to deal with costly repairs for their homes.

One thing the parliamentary secretary did get right is the fact that last October the federal government provided to the province of British Columbia a one time grant of $27.7 million. This is important to note, because during the last federal election campaign our local Liberals, including the member who was defeated by the member bringing forward the motion today, tried to spin that, saying that the federal government was actually providing $75 million in support.

Let us be clear. The $27 million grant allows the province to finance $75 million worth of no interest loans. In other words, the federal money basically pays the province the interest on $75 million. However, during that campaign the claims were just outrageous. There were claims in the media by Liberal candidates who were running around saying that the federal government had coughed up $75 million. It was no such thing.

The motion today is very straightforward and basic. The motion deals with one of the issues that came forward from the Barrett commission. It seems to me to be the most common sense and the most minimal thing the federal government could do, which is to provide GST relief just as the provincial government has provided PST relief.

However, surely we have to go further than that. People should be able to withdraw from their RRSPs and not get dinged on having to pay the taxes. People should be able to have an income tax deduction for the cost of repairs.

Finally there is the issue of compensation. Mr. Barrett made a very strong recommendation for compensation because people, through no fault of their own, are living in a state of disrepair and dysfunction because of what is happening to their buildings. Compensation is something I support and I believe the federal government has a responsibility to compensate those people.

The parliamentary secretary raised the issue of other disasters in Canada. Let us look at the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec and how quickly the federal government responded to it. The government saw it as an emergency and put forward some $900 million or $700 million to deal with it. That was the proper thing to do.

The issue of leaky condos in British Columbia is no less of an emergency but it has been completely ignored by the federal government. We must continue to press on this issue.

I say to the minister today in the House that if he has somehow forgotten the file on leaky condos or thinks other people have forgotten, he has only to go into any community in B.C. and talk to people to understand the horror of what they are facing. This is a very real financial burden for homeowners and families in British Columbia.

I very much support the motion. It is one aspect of a much larger program that needs to be undertaken. I also say shame on the federal government for ignoring the problem and cutting out homeowners who are legitimately concerned about an emergency over which they have no control. I urge the government to support the motion and provide GST relief.