Libby Davies

[Housing, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for CMHC may have forgotten the leaky condo file, but the thousands of homeowners facing bankruptcy and rising repair costs have not forgotten. It is something they face every day.

Will the minister meet with the delegation that is in Ottawa for the next few days? Will he, at a minimum, provide GST relief and non-taxable grants to help those people facing bankruptcy and the anxiety of dealing with leaky condos? Will the minister at least do that?

[St. John's Harbour, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to again rise in the House of Commons to speak to an issue of utmost urgency concerning the people of east Vancouver.

On several occasions in the past two months alone, including today, I have pressed the government on its lacklustre response on the health crisis of drug use, overdoses and safety. In fact, for four years I have been raising this and will keep on until I am satisfied that the federal government and the Minister of Health are doing all that can be done to save lives, improve the health and safety of my community and stop the criminalization of injection drug users who are dying at an alarming rate.

There are now so many expert reports, including that from the city of Vancouver, that it boggles the mind that leadership and action are so slow to follow. One of the most recent studies shows that female drug users are twice as likely to be infected with HIV-AIDS as men. This is the first time that this has happened in the developed world.

Since 1997 I have been pushing for a comprehensive strategy. I have called on the Minister of Health to adopt multicentre heroin prescription trials, safe injection sites, better housing and social support to users. All of these things will significantly improve the health of injection drug users as well as safety in the community. It will also reduce crime. If there is any doubt about this we have only to look to Europe to see the success of such an approach.

I do want to acknowledge that the federal government has provided some response. I am glad that the minister has responded to some of the concerns and has provided support for drug users, for example, by supporting the drug resource centre which unfortunately has yet to open. It has been mired in development permits and appeals in the city of Vancouver. Also, there is now talk of a feasibility study on clinical trials for drug maintenance. In my several meetings with the minister, I have always found him to be knowledgeable and sympathetic.

Up to now the RCMP has been opposed to safe injection sites and clinical trials for drug maintenance. Therefore it is very significant that the chief superintendent of the RCMP's drug enforcement program is now saying that the government should consider safe injection sites. This is a significant development and cannot be ignored, but it would require federal approval from the Minister of Health.

I want to say to the government today, for heaven's sake, let us get on with it now. I ask the government to be courageous and listen to what its own experts are saying.

In Australia the first legal heroin injection room opened a few days ago. Canada can be next. Canada can and must move on this issue. We can prevent needless deaths. We can prevent crime, which causes so much distress in my community and other communities across the country. We can stem the flow of wasted resources in law enforcement and judicial systems. We can change Canada's drug laws, which are badly in need of reform. What it takes is political will.

I ask the Minister of Health to stand tall, to be resolved to take this issue on and to listen to what his own experts are saying.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of this motion. I know that other members of the NDP caucus have spoken in strong support of this motion from the Progressive Conservative Party. We consider this to be a very critical issue facing Canadians.

The confidence of Canadians has been very severely shaken given recent events in both Walkerton and now in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. This raises the question as to whether or not any Canadian can rely upon our water system. It is something that many Canadians over the years have taken for granted.

We live in a country of immense natural resources with a huge abundance of freshwater. Canadians believe that our water resources are protected, clean and safe for drinking. Yet the events that have unfolded in the last year have seriously undermined what it is that we believe in in terms of clean water.

This leads me to the question of the motion before the House. While there needs to be negotiation and collaboration between the federal jurisdictions, provinces and territories, the critical issue is to arrive at a place where we have enforceable national drinking water standards that are enshrined in a safe water act. If we cannot agree on that in the House, then why are we here?

We are talking about a basic necessity of life. We are talking about the provision of a resource for human consumption that should be safeguarded at all cost. I do not think it makes a difference whether one lives in a small or rural community where reliance is on well water or whether one lives in a large urban centre where reliance is on very complex water filtration and chlorination systems. No matter where people live, they should have the assurance that the water is safe.

In my community in Vancouver there have been significant issues about water quality through the greater Vancouver regional district. We have fought many battles to try and stop logging in the watersheds where the reservoirs are to ensure the quality of that water. This has been a very hotly contested local issue. Many activists have taken it on over the years.

If we had a safe water act and enforceable standards along with a federal government that was willing to put that into law and provide a guarantee to every Canadian, then it seems to me that we would not have the severity of the problems that we are facing in Canada today. Along with my colleagues I wholeheartedly support the motion, as I hope every member of the House does, that we act in the public interest to uphold the public interest in terms of the provision of clear and safe drinking water.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of an issue that could come before the House where Canadians would have a greater sense of resolve, purpose and be of a common mind, than the issue of clean drinking water in our country.

The debate today has been very interesting. I thank the member for Fundy—Royal and the Progressive Conservatives for bringing the issue forward. It is important that we have this debate.

I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. It seems to me there is an agreement that we all want to see clean water, but the issue before us is whether or not the federal government is willing to take a stand and show the leadership to provide enforceable national drinking water standards, and to do that now, not at some point in the future. I heard my colleague say that he supports that.

On a related matter, it seems to me that he also raised the question of the use of pesticides and how they can contaminate our water systems. He gave some very alarming examples of what can happen. We have to remember that in the environment committee a very excellent report was issued on the use of pesticides, particularly for cosmetic use. My understanding is that the Canadian Alliance issued a dissenting report. It did not agree with the main report.

We have to be very clear about the positions being put forward. Either we agree that there should be clean water for Canadians, and that it should be backed up by enforceable national standards, or we think that somehow various jurisdictions such as the marketplace would take over. I believe the former.

What is the position of his party on the use of pesticides? Would it agree that it is a central point in whether or not we have a clean water system? Would he agree that we need to have strong enforceable standards, not just for the water but for all of the stuff that goes into those water systems, like pesticides?

[Health, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for four years I have been pressing the government to pay attention to the drug health crisis in Vancouver's downtown east side. Thousands of lives have been needlessly lost and public safety is at risk.

The Minister of Health expresses sympathy but people are still dying. Now even the head of the RCMP drug enforcement program is calling on the government to look at safe injection sites as part of a comprehensive strategy.

Will the Minister of Health finally save lives by taking action on this matter and supporting safe injection sites?

[Housing, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing says he will be announcing a program of affordable rental housing. Tragically, all the indications are that the program will not help Canadians most in need.

The National Coalition for the Homeless, in a letter to the minister, hit the nail on the head. It said:

There is a stark choice coming before Cabinet: to choose a genuine affordable housing program targeted to low and moderate-income Canadians or to approve an expedient, less expensive option that will not reach those who truly need help.

Every single housing group in the country has told the government loud and clear that rental subsidies are totally inadequate.

For once will the government not get it right and develop a genuine non-profit housing program with an adequate budget, not the measly $170 million it suggested?

We are in the worst housing crisis since World War II. The government's proposal is cheap and nothing more than political ass covering.

Let us get real and make non-profit housing a priority.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments. I am not surprised to hear the member say that he does not feel left out of the process as a parliamentarian.

However it should be recognized that the member is the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He is a part of the government and he is on the inside track.

When I talk with people in my riding and people who are out on the streets, they feel left out of the process. They know that this agreement is being negotiated behind the wall, behind the fence that people were protesting against, behind closed doors, and that it had been a very closed kind of environment.

If the Government of Canada has given an inch, it is only because of massive public pressure and opposition as well as pressure that the NDP has provided in the House unequivocally in its opposition to the FTAA. That is the nature of politics. It is because of that pressure that the government has been moving.

How could he consider that the so-called democracy clause is a huge advance when it is democracy on the basis of electing governments to do the bidding and the work for these huge corporations? That is what people object to. I do not understand why Liberal members do not understand that very fundamental point.

[Trade, April 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians spoke loud and clear in Quebec City in opposition to the FTAA and the corporate power it represents. However it is not just the FTAA that people are worried about. It is also GATS.

The B.C. government has done a critical analysis of GATS showing the very real threat to our public services like health, education, water treatment and electricity. Where is the federal trade minister on this issue? There is no public disclosure and no protection.

Why is the minister not upholding the public interest instead of the interest of his corporate buddies?

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Thirteen.

[Supply, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, so much for the official opposition. After hearing the comments of the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance in the debate today, I must say that the difference between the positions of the so-called official opposition and the government is indistinguishable.

It is very interesting and ironic to note that both the government and the opposition are now hiding behind saying “This is good for you. This is good for democracy. This is good for the environment. This is good for education, health care and our water”. In actual fact, just the opposite is true.

It is astounding to hear the line being peddled today by the government and the opposition, which is that the FTAA is so good for us. In a column that the leader of the Alliance wrote just a couple of days ago, he actually had the audacity to say that the FTAA also means good health, education, a clean environment, good working conditions, justice and human rights.

Where have these people been? What have they been reading? Any objective analysis tells us that the FTAA is about transferring rights to fewer and more powerful corporations. It is not about the distribution of wealth among people. It is not about a clean environment or labour standards or protecting our public services.

I would like to ask the member to explain to the Canadian public how his leader and his party can come to the astounding conclusion that somehow the FTAA is going to improve working conditions when there is nothing in the agreement that will actually lay out standards to ensure that workers' rights are respected in any of the countries that are now part of this agreement. It seems to me that this line being peddled is exactly the same line the government is using and that the government and the official opposition are in cahoots on this agreement.