Libby Davies

[Housing, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the government believes that is a national housing strategy then that is pathetic.

Everyone is calling for a national housing strategy: the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Toronto Board of Trade, national housing groups and even 85% of Canadians in a recent Maclean's poll.

People are really sick to death of the piecemeal announcements that we have been hearing. It is really an insult to the gravity of the problem.

I ask again: When will the government get the picture, move beyond crisis management and implement a national housing supply program and a national program that will actually build affordable housing for Canadians?

[Housing, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in the past week the finance minister's office has been flooded with thousands of letters and e-mails from Canadians who want to know when the minister will develop a national housing strategy based on the recommendations that he produced in his own report 10 years ago when he was in opposition.

Has the minister taken heed of those letters, and especially the fact that Canadians are calling on him and the government to go beyond crisis management and to implement recommendations that will bring us a national housing strategy? Does the minister even believe in his own report that he wrote 10 years ago? When will he develop a national housing strategy?

[Health, February 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a recent poll in the Vancouver Sun is yet more evidence that Vancouverites are ready to embrace significant change in drug policy reform. It is long overdue.

When I first rose in the House in 1997, I spoke to the Minister of Health and told him about the devastation, pain and impact on crime and safety that are the result of Canada's drug laws. I also spoke about the health crisis in my riding in Vancouver East.

After nearly four years of stalling and wrangling, it is time to take the volumes of studies and expert opinions and reform Canada's drug policies. The Vancouver agreement and the mayor's framework for action are a start, but I believe we need to go further if we are to save lives, reduce crime and improve the health of the community.

In August 1998, I introduced a motion in the House of Commons calling on the government to set up clinical trials for a heroin prescription program. I implore the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice to listen to the people of Vancouver and take the lead in changing Canada's drug strategy by bringing in heroin trials, safe injection sites and decriminalization for possession.

[Poverty, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. It is this government that has created a society of haves and have nots. If that is all the government can come up with then clearly it is socially bankrupt.

What is of even deeper concern is that in the throne speech we now hear reference to a national project on poverty, which is nothing more than a new guise for a workfare program to drive low income parents into low wage employment.

Is that her government's vision of the new economy? Is that what parents can look forward to?

[Poverty, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following on the heels of the Vanier Institute report, how much more evidence does the government need to understand what Canadians already know, that a decade of failed Liberal policies has resulted in Canadians working harder and longer with deepening poverty for millions?

How could the Prime Minister feel content, sitting on a massive surplus while millions of Canadian families lag behind and are living in poverty? How could he tolerate that?

[Speech From The Throne, January 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Halifax for her very thoughtful comments in response to the throne speech. She covered the whole gamut of what was lacking in the throne speech and what, from the perspective of New Democrats, we need to be putting forward.

I agree with the hon. member when she says that what this parliament and the Government of Canada need to do is address the bread and butter issues facing Canadians. She laid that out very well.

I would like the hon. member to comment on one aspect of the throne speech, which is that we somehow will have a new national project to address child poverty. Could the hon. member comment on this based on the performance we have seen from the government over the last three and a half years? I am sure she remembers the time 11 years ago when the Hon. Ed Broadbent put forward a resolution in the House of Commons to eliminate child poverty. What happened to that national project? Why is the Liberal government only talking about it today as though somehow this will be addressed? The record on this issue is important. I would like the hon. member to give us her thoughts on the matter.

[The Economy, January 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech we heard about the so-called Liberal vision of a prosperous nation ready to embrace globalization, but who really gets to be included in the new high tech Canada of the future? It is not the 200,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets tonight, not the 14% of Canadian families who continue to live in poverty, not the students facing crushing debt loads and not the thousands of aboriginal peoples dealing with the hardships of life in our urban cores.

If the throne speech signals the return to Liberal roots of social justice, then a heck of a lot of people got left behind.

Social justice is not about vague promises or hollow platitudes. It is not about the Liberal tradition of announcing the same old patchwork programs over and over. Social justice is about real inclusion. It is about a national housing strategy, universal day care, a national grants program and acknowledging the responsibility to off reserve aboriginal peoples. That is what the throne speech should have been about.

[Poverty, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister said the Alliance did not care about poverty. I want to say that the Prime Minister has nothing to crow about. The public records clearly show that poverty and homelessness have become tragic growth industries under this Liberal watch. There is a very clear choice here. Is it shovelling out huge tax cuts to the corporate elite or is it funding our basic human needs to shelter?

I would like to ask the Prime Minister how does he defend his government's shameless choice of billions for the few and crumbs for the many? How does he defend that?

[Proportional Representation, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of my colleague's Motion No. 155 which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should work towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation in the federal electoral system, making use of a framework which includes: (a) a report on proportional representation prepared by an all-party committee after extensive public hearings; (b) a referendum to be held on this issue where the question shall be whether electors favour replacing the present system with a system proposed by the committee as concurred in by the House; and (c) the referendum may be held either before or at the same time as the next general election.

I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, for bringing this issue forward. The member has been a champion both of reforming democracy and of bringing a measure of democracy before the House ever since he first became a member I believe more than 20 years ago. I want to say that it is this kind of outstanding work by one member of parliament that is a measure of what a person can do in the House and what can be accomplished.

I think it sometimes has been rather a lonely battle to take on this issue. I congratulate the member for having the strength and motivation to keep plugging away at the issue of making sure our democratic system is more representative and fair. It is an issue that perhaps Canadians do not fully understand, but when I talk to my constituents in East Vancouver and to other electors, I really understand that people feel alienated and very far removed from the political system. We only have to look at federal election results and voter turnout to see what happens in terms of people's alienation.

It used to be that when a federal election was called, 80% of those eligible to vote would actually go out and vote. That number has dropped. I believe in the last federal election it was down to about 67% or 69%. In my own constituency of Vancouver East it went even slightly below the national average.

Here we are today, in the House, poised to deal with the issue of proportional representation and days away from an expected federal election call on whatever issue the Prime Minister has dreamed up he wants to campaign on, when the very issue of democracy and fair representation has not been taken up by the government. I welcome the opportunity, days before what we expect to be an election call, to actually debate this issue. Hats off to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for having the strength to bring forward and never give up on the issue.

It is important to explain to Canadian voters what proportional representation is all about. Basically it is making sure representation in the House of Commons is proportional to the number of votes a party actually wins. That is the basic premise and that is the principle on which we are advancing this motion.

What it really means is that if a political party wins, say, 38% of the vote, which in actual fact is what the governing party did win, it would get only about 38% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is not what our experience is today. When we see what our system really does produce it is really quite astounding. I think it reinforces people's cynicism about the political system.

I would like hon. members to look at the numbers. In the last federal election the Reform Party got 19% of the vote and so did the Conservative Party. However, because of our system of basically first past the post, the Conservative Party got 19 seats and became the fifth party. The Reform Party, still based on the same kind of support within the Canadian electorate, got 60 seats and became the official opposition.

In terms of the other two political parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP each got approximately 11% of the vote in the last federal election. What was produced in the House was astoundingly different. The Bloc Quebecois got 44 seats in the House and the NDP got 21 seats.

I think Canadians understand but they may not have thought it through in terms of the actual formula used. It begs the question is this what democracy is about? Is this what representation means? To the hon. member who said yes, that is what it is about, I say he is dead wrong.

If we look at every other developed country in the western world there is some proportional representation. Judy Rebick, a well-known commentator on CBC, wrote in her column in May 2000, when this motion was first introduced, that Canada is probably the least democratic country in the developed world when it comes to elections. Democracy is defined in the dictionary as majority rule, and yet in all of Canadian history only two federal governments have actually won a majority of votes. I agree with her view. We are way overdue for a political debate on this issue. Astoundingly it has not been debated for over 75 years.

When I came to the House as a newly elected member of parliament I had strong ideals, which I still have, about working for my constituents and making a difference in this place. I am sure all 301 members of parliament feel that way. However, when we look at the system under which we operate and see how it is systemically designed to reinforce establishment party rule, I really think we have to challenge that status quo. We have to say to ourselves and to Canadians that if we believe in democracy and true representation of what people are actually voting, we must have the courage to stand and change that system and move to a system of proportional representation where people can ensure that every vote counts.

That is precisely what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has designed this motion to do, to ensure that the voices of Canadians, no matter where they are in the country, are actually reflected in the House of Commons representation.

The motion actually talks about establishing an all party committee. I suggest that this is a very important element. My entire last community householder addressed the idea in “It's About Democracy”. I talked about voting, the importance of the right to vote, and how in many places people have died for the right to vote. I actually included a whole section on proportional representation to get people's feedback. I have been amazed by the interest and the feedback from people who say they want to know more about it and how they can make sure it happens.

We are days away from an election based on the old established rules. As a consequence most people will be silent. Their votes will not be counted in a truly representational way.

As members of the House we have the opportunity to say we are willing to look at this issue, to make our parliament democratic and to make our voting system democratic. The 75 years of silence on this issue, other than the work our hon. member has done, is far too long to wait for true democracy.

I call on all members of the House to support the motion. At least let us have a good debate on it to see what kind of support there is from the public, because I think it is there.

[Marine Liability Act, October 6th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Calgary West was in the House earlier. I may have the wrong riding, but I believe it was the member for Calgary West.

Bill S-17 is probably not the most high profile piece of legislation before the House. It certainly is not the most glamorous. Probably very little attention is being paid to it. Nevertheless the marine liability act is an important piece of legislation. Members of the New Democratic Party have some concerns at this point in the debate but will be supporting the legislation.

Marine legislation is very fragmented. It now falls within a number of different acts over many years. Many of the acts are outdated. They are certainly not in line with current processes and international law or the kind of legislation enjoyed by other countries. It is very important that we are debating marine legislation today.

My riding of Vancouver East contains a very large chunk of the port of Vancouver. As someone coming from the west coast, marine legislation is something that I recognize is of great importance. Members in my caucus, including the member for Halifax West, the member for Dartmouth and all other members from Nova Scotia, have placed a great amount of emphasis on the need for marine legislation, particularly in terms of creating a shipbuilding capacity in Canada. We have had a long and very rich tradition in Canada of a marine industry, of building ships, of creating jobs.

I want to say for myself from the west coast and my colleagues from the east coast that this is something we think is very key to who we are as Canadians, that is, to improve upon our capacity to produce economic wealth, prosperity and benefits from our shipbuilding industry.

The legislation before us today, although it does not deal specifically with a need for shipbuilding, does cover some important areas that need to be dealt with.

Bill S-17 seeks to unify under this piece of legislation the various bits and pieces that have been fragmented over the years. It attempts to modernize these laws and to keep Canada in line with international conventions. This is something we certainly support. It is not only generating new legislation. It is making sure that the legislation already in place is relevant and up to date and that it deals with the concerns we have today.

Bill S-17, as I have said, covers many areas that are already enshrined in law. These include, for example, the limitation of liability for maritime claims, the liability and compensation for pollution and the liability for carriage of goods by water. These laws are generally now re-enacted in this bill with some minor changes to incorporate international conventions and supreme court decisions.

There are other aspects of the bill that will also be clarified and these are certainly things that have been outstanding and needed attention. We are very glad to see that they have been addressed in this bill. They have to deal with personal injuries and fatalities.

There is no question that the experience and the evidence has shown that at the present time under the existing legislation, which is now very updated, there is a lot of confusion that can arise because there is a very ambiguous and blurred line between federal and provincial legislation and responsibilities. This has obviously caused a lot of problems. The area of federal-provincial jurisdiction is something that we struggle with in this country. It is something that we need to address through legislation. It is positive to note that this bill will end what has been a confusing circumstance in terms of federal and provincial responsibilities.

If the bill is passed, clear outlines will be set regarding the relatives of those who die as a result of marine accidents in terms of the claims they can make and to whom. For everyone in the House, just on the basis of common decency and respecting what happens to people when they have lost someone close to them, a member of their family, in some sort of marine accident, to have a procedure that is efficient, humane, respectful and understandable is something that is very important.

We are very pleased to see that this now has been included in the legislation and that it will help people who are faced with these kinds of tragedies and accidents. God knows we have all had experiences of having to deal with a bureaucracy after someone has had a serious accident or has died. We know what it is like to have to go through the paperwork and make the claims. It can be a very difficult thing to do when you are in a grieving process.

The fact that this legislation will bring some clarity to the matter is an improvement. It hopefully will help those family members who are dealing with a very difficult circumstance as a result of someone who has died or who may have been in an accident.

Another important aspect of the bill and, in fact, probably one of the more critical things, which may not have gotten a lot of attention, is that Bill S-17 will also prohibit shipowners from contracting out liability for loss of life or personal injury.

The current practice, one used for many years, is that within Canada it is very common for shipowners to insert a clause into contracts of carriage that removes the shipowner's liability. What does that mean? What has been the impact of that?

It reminds me very much of the situation we faced with the Westray mine disaster, an example of corporate responsibility that was completely without consequences because there was not any clear legislation to say that individual corporate executives and the corporation itself are liable for their negligence and for the people they put at risk. As members of the House know, members of the New Democratic Party have been a very powerful force, along with members from other parties, in bringing forward legislation to say that corporate executives and corporations must be held criminally responsible for any negligence or any criminal act.

This particular feature in Bill S-17 addresses this same kind of principle. It clearly talks about the kind of contracting out that took place in the past. Let us imagine trying to contract out one's liability, saying “It is not really mine as a shipowner. I will pass the buck to someone else. I will pass on the responsibility to someone else”. Again, the fact that the bill will remove that kind of situation is an improvement.

In this day and age we are in an environment that is increasingly dominated by multinational corporations, by huge organizations that are in some instances nameless and faceless. The sense of corporate responsibility and the sense of accountability for people who are trying to deal with the system are sometimes very far removed. In this respect this one particular clause in the bill is a move in the right direction in saying that there must be corporate social responsibility, that the idea of hiding oneself behind a third party will not fly any more.

These exemptions, for example, are already null and void in the United States, France and Great Britain. There is no question that we should not be left behind on this issue. Canada must act on this matter now because we do not know when a disaster may occur. We have to be prepared. We have to make sure that legislation is in place that clearly protects victims and families of marine accidents and clearly shows the lines of responsibility in terms of where wrongdoing has taken place.

I have spoken on aspects of the bill that we support. We think there are improvements, but it is only fair to say that we also have concerns. It is appropriate to lay those on the table and to be clear that we also have some questions about the bill. As the bill proceeds through the House, we would like to see some answers.

There is one clause that certainly does concern us. After some research and some questioning of Transport Canada bureaucrats by our caucus, we have not really found any of the answers we are looking for. We are very concerned with the fact that the bill would prevail over the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act if there were any inconsistencies or conflicts between the two.

Whilst we are willing to support the bill at second reading, I want to say that members of the New Democratic Party and our critic in this area, the member for Churchill, want further answers in committee. We want to know how the bill might affect important environmental legislation and we want to know what the various scenarios and possibilities are. We want to be assured that the bill will not override very important environmental protection in other legislation that exists.

In conclusion, members of the New Democratic Party feel generally positive about the bill. We think it is an improvement over what we have now. It will be a piece of legislation that captures together the bits and pieces and the patchwork of existing provisions. It will modernize the provisions for protection around liability. It will clearly outline better corporate responsibility, which we think is important, and it will give better protection to those who travel by marine vessels or who are involved with them.

We therefore support the bill in principle but with the caveat that if the government is concealing some answers in terms of the concerns we have about other environmental and protection legislation, then of course we will look at the bill again and not be so accepting. However, at this point we support it in principle.