Libby Davies

[Criminal Code, April 4th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children).

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today to reintroduce the bill in this session of parliament.

This is something that I care about very much. It is a bill that seeks to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This section of the criminal code allows for the use of force as a means of correcting or disciplining a child.

Children are the only group in society that adults are allowed to use force against, as outlined in the current section 43 of the criminal code.

My bill would seek to uphold the rights of the child as outlined in international law and many other policies and programs of the government. It would also seek to enforce that there are adequate means of correction that need not involve physical harm or force against children.

I am very happy to introduce the bill in the House today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Transportation, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is providing Canadians with hollow assurances. In Vancouver striking transit workers and transit riders know that the government takes out over $350 million in gas taxes from the lower mainland but despite election promises refuses to put a dime back into public transit.

Why will the government not put its money where its mouth is, ratify the Kyoto agreement and provide funding for very important public transit in the lower mainland and the rest of Canada? Why will it not do that?

[Housing, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing said it loud and clear. “We are not going back to social housing”, he was reported as saying in the Toronto Star of April 1.

Could we imagine a country as wealthy as Canada, where a million Canadians are experiencing severe housing insecurity and homelessness, and the minister comes out with this outrageous position?

Many dedicated groups have campaigned for the 1% commitment for housing, for the right to shelter and decent housing, but the government says no, a shameful response if ever there was one.

To add insult to injury the only new initiative the government will undertake is a subsidy program for market housing. Why on earth would we be lining the pockets of developers?

The government's proposal is based on the theory that if we help people at the top, eventually that will trickle down to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. This kind of market driven ideology will only increase the gap between the rich and the poor.

We reject the government's private subsidy approach. Community based social housing makes good economic sense. It creates good jobs and it helps the people who need it. We need social housing.

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members who participated in the debate today. I especially thank my friend from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke in support of the motion. I certainly appreciate the support of that party.

I appreciate the support of other parties as well. In listening carefully to the debate it seems that all members who spoke from the Liberal, the Alliance and the Conservative Party outlined the fact that they had concerns with Canada's lack of policy for the protection of whales and dolphins in captivity. I certainly agree that there are huge issues regarding the ecosystem and the environment in the wild and that they are being undermined and violated.

The motion today deals with trade and captivity. I will set the record straight. The hon. member from the government side seemed to suggest that somehow we already had a moratorium in place and that what Canada was doing today was adequate.

I must say very strongly that is not case. What we are doing today is clearly inadequate. The 1992 moratorium of which the member spoke was for belugas only. It was not for all whales and dolphins. When Marineland's request to capture belugas from Churchill was denied, what did it do? It went offshore. It went to Russia. That is where it found belugas and whales for capture and import into Canada.

It begs the question. Clearly our existing practice is not adequate. It does not even come close to dealing with the concerns expressed today.

I was also very surprised to hear the government suggest that somehow the issue of captivity and maintenance is a provincial responsibility. It seems the government is very strong on its intent in terms of trade areas. Clearly this is a trade issue in terms of the import, export and trade of whales and dolphins.

I was very interested to hear the comments of members of the Canadian Alliance about how whale watching was something many people enjoyed. They argued that because we did not all have the opportunity to whale watch we needed captivity and aquariums.

This is a very important ethical issue. Do we have the right to take animals out of their natural environment, place them in small tanks in captivity, separate them from their natural family group and somehow say that it is natural and educational? I would argue that is not the case.

I urge the government to adopt the recommendations in Dr. Lien's report. He outlines that we need a moratorium to further analyze and debate the issues raised today in the House regarding ethics, education, and the long term impact of captivity and the ongoing trade. I urge the government to follow that report.

In closing, I thank the organizations that helped bring the motion forward. It continues to do outstanding work in putting pressure on the government to accept its responsibility, to make sure we have humane policies and rules, and to see that we get a moratorium on the capture and trade of whales and dolphins. I seek unanimous consent of the House to make the motion a votable motion.

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live capture and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to bring forward the motion for debate because it is a very topical issue and something that I think is of great interest to Canadians. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should decree an immediate moratorium on the live capture and trade of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises).

I will begin my remarks by explaining why I have brought the motion forward.

The reality is that Canada lacks any regulation. In fact Canada has chosen not to regulate the import, export and interprovincial trade in marine mammals or to regulate their breeding in captivity. This is in very sharp contrast to other countries, especially the U.K., which has very tough legislation regulating marine mammals in captivity.

The purpose of my motion is to engage in a very important public discussion among Canadians about the ethics, the problems and the issues with the trade and captivity of marine mammals.

I believe that Canadians care deeply about marine mammals and what happens to them. We need as public legislators to start making decisions about how to protect the species.

The current situation in Canada is actually something that is quite sad. Going back to 1992, we have a good initiative in that the then minister of DFO, Mr. Crosbie, announced that he would no longer consider any application for the live capture of beluga whales from Canada to other countries. However this only covered belugas. It did not deal with interprovincial trade within Canada. Unfortunately it has occurred in practice only, that is, it has not been followed up in any policy sense or in any legislative sense.

I think we have to ask the question: Why has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deemed it inappropriate to export belugas to other countries but has left it quite open that other marine mammals are unprotected within our borders?

If the motion before us today were taken up by the government, which I hope it will be, who would be affected by this moratorium? Currently in Canada, we have three aquariums which feature captive whales and dolphins: the Vancouver Aquarium; the West Edmonton Mall; and Marineland of Canada in Niagara Falls.

The West Edmonton Mall personnel have indicated that they will phase out the dolphin show and not replace the dolphins upon their deaths.

The Vancouver Aquarium, as a result of many years of public lobbying and very strong public concern, has stated that it will no longer acquire whales and dolphins from the wild and will no longer keep killer whales. In fact, the last remaining orca whale, the Bjossa, is slated to go to Sea World in San Diego very shortly. However, the situation at the Vancouver Aquarium is that it still left open the possibility of securing marine mammals already captive at other facilities. The reason I brought forward this motion is that it would put a stop to that.

The other aquarium in Canada, Marineland, currently has 10 beluga whales, 7 bottlenose dolphins and 7 killer whales. It has a history of breeding animals and may be poised, unfortunately, to become an international source for the captive whale and dolphin industry unless it is regulated.

This is a very serious subject. There is a lot of ambiguity and confusion about what Canada's position is on the issue due to the lack of regulation and legislation.

The Vancouver parks board, which I visited last Monday night, March 26, was considering its own bylaw that would theoretically prohibit the importation of live captive whales and dolphins. Unfortunately, the bylaw was so ambiguous that a lot of concerned groups and individuals in Vancouver lobbied the parks board for a clear bylaw that would prohibit the live capture and importation or trading of whales through the Vancouver Aquarium.

When I spoke at the Vancouver park board it seemed to me that it would make much better sense to have a national policy and/or legislation that would clearly outline Canada's position and protect these magnificent animals from live capture and captivity in aquariums and trading.

In doing research on this issue, one of the things I found to be most disturbing was that not only does Canada have a lack of regulation and a lack of policy on this issue but we also have become a haven for what is called whale laundering. This is something that is very serious and is not known by many people.

Some countries, such as the United States, have much tougher legislation governing the capture of marine mammals for captivity. To avoid these rules, some U.S. facilities can capture animals in a third country, Russia for example, and then house those animals in facilities here in Canada. The practice has been that after a short period of time, maybe a year or so, they are then brought into the United States. This process has allowed U.S. marine facilities to bypass their own tough legislation and to avoid public scrutiny. They are using Canada and our facilities to do that.

There is no question that Marineland and the Vancouver Aquarium have served in this capacity in the past. In doing so, I believe that our Canadian facilities undermine marine mammal regulations in other countries and indeed internationally.

I will now spend a few minutes on the cost of government inaction. Canada's Marineland has been very active in the international whale and dolphin trade. Since May 1999, it has imported 12 beluga whales and six bottlenose dolphins from Russia. Two of the belugas have since died in captivity. The capturing of these animals happens in the most inhumane fashion imaginable.

On Friday, when I held a press conference on my motion, we showed a video that was taken in Russia on the capture of beluga whales. It showed the absolute inhumane conditions that are in complete violation of international rules for aviation, travel and transport as well as for the capture of whales.

The video was most graphic and disturbing. It showed the cruelty and abuse these animals suffer only to end up captive in a marine facility where they are put on public display. My fear is that if the minister does not act soon Canada will become known as a warehousing facility for marine mammals to other facilities around the world.

Government inaction is not only lamentable but it defies both logic and compassion. I know the minister has received thousands of letters asking him to act. I also know that during this past week about 100 e-mails, letters and faxes in support of the motion came through to the minister's office.

Last Tuesday I attended the Pacific headquarters of the DFO in Vancouver and delivered to the minister's office copies of all of the e-mails that I have received as well as a presentation from Zoocheck Canada of a very serious graphic representation of a whale inside a sardine can. We know what we see when we peel back a sardine can. We see sardines squished together, lined up one by one in those tiny cans. Imagine a poster of a sardine can and when it is rolled back from the corner what we see is a whale. That representation really symbolizes what this issue is about in terms of captivity.

Further to the governments inaction, one of the things that is really of very grave concern is that in 1998 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans commissioned Dr. Jon Lien, a respected marine mammal scientist from Memorial University in Newfoundland, to examine the practice of live capture and captive maintenance of marine mammals in Canada.

In that report from 1998, not only did Dr. Lien call for a ban on new live capture and imports, but he also called for a moratorium on the captive maintenance of marine mammals. The department and the minister have now had this report sitting on their desks for two years and have chosen not to act on the recommendation from Dr. Lien.

I have to ask the question today: why has this report not been acted on? Why has this issue been left not even on the back burner but just gathering dust on a shelf while we still have live capture, trading and captivity of whales and dolphins in our country and are now warehousing them for other groups around the world?

Animal protection groups such as Zoocheck Canada have made numerous attempts to meet with the minister and/or DFO staff in the past year, but those requests have been denied. Yet I was astounded to learn just a few days ago that the department is currently meeting with industry officials in secret and looking at developing supposed educational standards in regard to the captivity of whales and dolphins.

Again I have to ask why there is a double standard here. Why do we have a report that has not been acted upon when there is intense public interest in the issue? Why is it that the department is meeting behind closed doors when there should be open public disclosure and debate about the very important ethical, educational and scientific issues involved in the captivity of these marine mammals?

I want to make it clear that the motion today is not asking that Canada take a leadership role on the issue, because a number of countries around the world have already imposed bans on the import of whales and dolphins, including Argentina, Cyprus, Hungary, India, Israel and Chile. What we are asking in the motion is that Canada play its role, that it display progressive and positive decision making to protect these magnificent animals from further abuse and from further live capture and captivity.

I believe that the quality of life for marine mammals in captivity is inhumane. There is very strong evidence for this. Far from being a far ranging, deep diving, constantly moving creature, a captive whale becomes essentially a sedentary animal, spending most of its time at the surface swimming in circles in a small concrete tank. In some cases, such as Marineland of Canada, this means keeping an adult orca in a 25 foot diameter tank for long periods of time so that it has nothing to do but float motionless at the surface. Is this educational? Is this what we consider humane treatment?

Orcas, dolphins and beluga whales use echolocation or sonar ability to navigate at night and to find food. In a concrete tank which never changes and has no textural variety to it, they almost never use this critical behaviour.

Whales and dolphins are among the most socially complex creatures on earth. They live in close knit groups that often consist of multiple generations of the same family. The life expectancy of marine mammals in captivity is greatly reduced. In the wild, orcas can live into their 80s, while in captivity few have lived into their 30s.

Clearly there is an ethical issue about whether or not these animals are being kept in captivity for so-called education or simply for entertainment. It is clear that we need to do something. It is clear that we need to act upon the recommendations in Dr. Lien's report.

I want to thank many people and organizations such as Brian McHattie from Zoocheck Canada, Shelagh Macdonald from the Canadian Federation of Human Societies, Annelise Sorg from the Coalition for No Whales in Captivity in Vancouver, and John Mate from Whale Friends. They have taken up this issue with passion, have not let it go and have demanded that the government determine why this report from two years ago has not been acted on.

I look forward to the responses from other parties today in the House. I hope there will be a positive response. If we genuinely believe there should be protection for these magnificent animals, then that report must be acted on by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Canadian Human Rights Commission, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, does anyone over there on the government's side of the House care any more?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has issued a serious and damning report on the government's failure to meet its own objectives and there has been zero response. Why has the government fallen down on meeting its employment equity objectives? Why has it again failed the aboriginal people of the county and robbed the community of its dignity, human rights and basic needs to health, housing, income security and decent work opportunities?

I applaud the Canadian Human Rights Commission for speaking out and recommending that social conditions be added to the act to prohibit discrimination of poor people.

The question remains, however, of whether the government will address these serious shortcomings outlined in the commission's report. While scandal racks the multiculturalism minister and the PM ponders his bill of sale, people are hurting. Government policy is failing from neglect and indifference.

We in this party will not let the government off the hook on human rights, employment equity and justice for the poor.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak today in the House to Bill C-2 and, in particular, to the amendment.

I would first like to pay tribute to the incredible amount of work that has taken place to bring the bill to where it is today, limited as it is.

I along with many of my colleagues were elected in 1997. From day one of being elected to parliament, members of the New Democratic Party took up the issue of the discrimination and unfairness in the Employment Insurance Act which was brought in 1996. In particular, our spokesperson on unemployment insurance, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, has taken this issue up with an absolute passion and is an advocate for the unemployed men and women in this country. It is the work of that member and of other members in the opposition that has forced this issue on to the political agenda. It is quite ironic to see the amount of effort that was needed to force the government to bring forward even the very limited changes that are before us today in Bill C-2.

In looking over the bill and the amendments, there is no question that if the bill is approved in its present form it would still act as a discriminatory piece of legislation and hurt those members of society who need the most protection and support.

A glaring contradiction to the bill are the statements the government side has made in the House professing to be concerned about the increase in child poverty. I remember the unanimous resolution that was approved by the House in 1989, moved by the then leader of the NDP, Mr. Ed Broadbent, calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. It was a noble goal. Not only have we not reached that goal, we have fallen further behind. We now have more children living in poverty as a result of public policies. One of those public policies is what has taken place with employment insurance.

My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre spoke very eloquently on how the bill historically, and even today, would have a very negative impact on women. When we look at the provisions of the bill we realize that even though women pay into employment insurance they will not qualify.

On the one hand, with great respect, we have come to this point only because of the absolute determination of members in our party and other parties to bring this forward. On the other hand, it is with a note of frustration and anxiety when I see that the bill still does not fundamentally address the inequities that exist within the system.

As the member for Winnipeg North Centre noted earlier, if the bill had come forward with a gender based analysis, as the government side said that it would, we would not be debating the bill in its current form today.

I am concerned that the provisions before us today will not help part time workers. They will not help women and they will not help all new parents. One of the positive things about the bill is that it does provide new provisions for new parents, but not all new parents will qualify.

I can tell members, and I am sure it is true for other members of the House, about the phone calls I am getting in my constituency office in Vancouver East from people who are desperate for support for their families.

My constituents hear about the debate in the House of Commons. They look with a sense of hope that some changes could be coming to provide them with some relief to pay the rent, to put food on the table, and to have bus fare to go to school and to go to various activities in the community. Constituents phone and ask whether the bill would help them, whether they would qualify for employment insurance.

Reading the fine print we find that there are still huge numbers of people, particularly women, part time workers and seasonal workers, who will be left behind.

The New Democratic Party is concerned that Bill C-2, the employment insurance bill, further entrenches growing inequality. Members have an opportunity to recognize that the moneys that flow into the fund come from the workers of Canada. We have a financial, social and political responsibility to make sure that unemployed workers, parents who are seeking re-entry into the workforce and members of our society are protected.

We have a responsibility to ensure that they are treated with fairness and that they are not penalized by clawback measures which still exist in the current bill. Unfortunately that is not the case. The changes in the bill are so limited that the number of people who would be affected is very small.

The New Democratic Party and I know we are joined by other members who understand that the political process is determined and resolved in its efforts to make sure the issue stays at the top of the political agenda. It is about fairness and equality. It is about recognizing how women have been discriminated against.

We believe in the charter of rights and in equality. We believe that when workers pay into a fund they have a right to income security when they are either unemployed, laid off or seasonal workers. New parents should have access to parental leave. They have a right to a certain level of comfort and security.

We will continue to work very hard to make sure that the amendments before us today that deal with some of the worst aspects of the bill and try to improve it are passed. There is no question that a much more indepth analysis is required on the whole question of employment insurance.

I urge all members of the House to support the amendments before us today that deal with some of the problems in the bill. It must not stop there. It is only one small step. We must be committed to ensuring there are further changes to the system to end discrimination against unemployed people and women. We must accept a very basic premise that unemployed people in Canada have a right to access their own insurance funds.

One of the worst scandals is how the fund has been raided over the years by the Government of Canada. Thirty-five billion dollars has been taken in tax cuts to balance the books. That does not help poor people. In any other instance this would be a completely intolerable situation, yet it has been allowed to happen here.

It is so shameful that we see people desperately trying to keep a roof over their heads, to pay bills every month, and to have their kids go to school. Yet these billions of dollars have been accumulated in the surplus fund and the money will not go to the people who most desperately need it. There is no other example that is as outrageous, as discriminatory and as unfair as this one.

We on this side of the House and in this party will continue to fight what appears to be the agenda of the government, to ensure that unemployed people do not get what they deserve. We want to make sure they have full access to income security and are treated with fairness and without discrimination.

[Multiculturalism, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is International Day for the Elimination of Racism. On this day we in the federal NDP stand in solidarity with all people in a commitment to eliminate all forms of racism in our workplaces, communities, schools and institutions and in government and public policies.

We are part of a growing human rights movement that affirms the worth, dignity and equality of all people and recognizes that our civic, political, social and economic human rights are part of this struggle.

As we approach the world conference against racism in South Africa, we call on the federal government to take concrete steps to eliminate racism within Canada and internationally. For example, the government must act now to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and to bring justice to the victims of racist policies at residential schools.

We call on the government to eliminate the hated head tax on immigrants and provide redress for the racist head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants at the turn of the century.

[Trade, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is either naive or he is trying to delude Canadians with his wishy-washy position.

The real evidence of the government's intent is the fact that it stood by and watched Alberta give DeVry Institute degree granting powers. This opens up a huge door for a NAFTA challenge that would allow private for profit universities access to public funds.

Again, why is the minister putting our public education system at risk both under GATS and under NAFTA?

[Trade, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister for International Trade claimed the government will protect education and social programs under GATS, but in the same breath he is champing at the bit to give Canadian corporations greater access to foreign markets.

The funny thing is that this is exactly what the Americans are saying. How will the government protect education with increasing pressure to allow transnational corporations access to our public education system?