Libby Davies

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a Prime Minister who talks so much about human rights, his actions in Vancouver speak louder than words. Students opposed to APEC were detained without cause, violently attacked and are expected to defend themselves with neither funding nor support against a battalion of backroom government lawyers.

Will the Prime Minister and the government do the right thing and provide the legal representation for students attacked at APEC?

[Apec Summit, September 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Today we heard how Canada brought honour to itself as a leader in the battle to end apartheid, a system deplored for its violent contempt of human rights. But at APEC the Prime Minister brought dishonour when he trampled on the rights of Canadian students to welcome a dictator deplored for his contempt of both human rights and human life.

Will the government come clean on APEC and reassure the young people of Canada that we are a defender, not an abuser, of human rights?

[Southeast Asia, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Indonesia and Thailand on a mission led by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation to see the impact of the Asian financial crisis on the people who live there.

The impact is catastrophic. Families are desperate, reeling from massive unemployment and skyrocketing food prices. And for many, the last threads of hope are rapidly unwinding.

Upon our return we called on the government to fundamentally change its role in global economic management. The World Bank and IMF's prescription is disastrous. These institutions must be completely overhauled to ensure that the forces of globalization create equity and serve the needs of people.

Instead of using pepper spray to stifle students protesting APEC in Vancouver, instead of ignoring the cries of hunger from citizens around the world who are paying the consequences of global capital gone berserk, this government must end its complicity with the financial power brokers and champion global reform to alleviate poverty and environmental degradation.

[Lieutenant Colonel William Barker, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a whole stack of reports has documented what too many Canadians already know as a daily reality. Poverty is increasing in Canada.

The latest report of the National Council of Welfare paints a devastating picture similar to other reports from Campaign 2000, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I have raised this serious matter many times in the House and pointed out that while the Minister of Finance talks about growing economic optimism millions of Canadians are desperate as a result of high unemployment, low wages and lower welfare rates.

Cuts to social assistance, education, health care and EI only make matters worse. The information from the National Council of Welfare report is a condemnation of the government's record. It shows that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. Three billion dollars have been slashed since 1996 and poor people are paying the price. Some 5.2 million Canadians are living below the poverty line. They stand in food line-ups, homeless and raising kids on welfare that keeps them in poverty.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has drawn attention to this government made travesty. The chief commissioner pointed out in her 1997 annual report that the Canadian Human Rights Act made no mention of poverty and did not include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination. She went on to say that in the broader context poverty was a serious breach of equality rights which she believed had no place in a country as prosperous as ours.

Also she said that it was difficult to argue that poverty was not a human rights issue given the devastating impact it had on people's lives and that we must not forget that article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated that everyone had a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services.

I have introduced a motion in the House that would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include social conditions as a grounds for being prohibited from discrimination.

Will the government take action to reduce poverty by setting targets that are achievable? Will the government admit that the too often announced child tax benefit falls far short of being an anti-poverty strategy? It eliminates the benefit to families on welfare. It is not indexed. It has more to do with keeping wages low and unemployment high.

All this is taking place in an environment of media and political attacks on the poor. Just last week the Reform Party member at the human resource development committee launched into an attack against poor people.

We need political leadership from the government and all political parties to agree that unemployment and poverty are serious matters crying out for change in government policies.

We need a fair taxation system. We need proper income distribution. We need corporations to pay the billions of dollars in deferred income taxes. We need the government to restore our social programs. We need to set targets to aggressively reduce unemployment and poverty.

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the post-secondary education critic for the NDP I have tried to do my best to press the federal government on concerns about post-secondary education and the crisis we are facing.

In question period about a week ago I questioned the government about the skyrocketing tuition fees and deregulation which is causing a two tier educational system in Canada. I pointed out to the government that the Americanization and the privatization of post-secondary education is directly as a result of the gutting of federal funding.

I was shocked by the response from the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, who suggested I speak to my colleagues in the Government of British Columbia to deal with the issue of skyrocketing tuition fees. I was shocked at this response because I could not believe a government minister was not aware, especially the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, that in the province of British Columbia we have had a tuition freeze not for one year, not for two years but for three years.

The B.C. government introduced legislation very recently that will continue the tuition freeze until 1999. The government of B.C. is doing this to ensure that post-secondary education is affordable and accessible. The freeze will include tuition fees for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and developmental programs. It also freezes mandatory ancillary fees that could increase the cost of tuition, including such items as library registration or laboratory fees.

I point this out because I really find it appalling that the federal government apparently has not a clue what is going on in British Columbia and the leadership that has been taken to ensure that post-secondary education is still accessible. This tuition freeze will ensure tuition fees of B.C. are among the lowest in Canada.

In other provinces such as Ontario tuition fees have increased by 20% in recent years and enrolment has declined. But B.C. has increased funding to post-secondary education despite the massive cutbacks by the federal government, a 20% increase, $39 million for this year alone. Even today in British Columbia the government announced that it is removing tuition fees completely for adult basic education.

I want to set the record straight and call on the government to issue an apology to the B.C. government in alleging and charging that tuition fees in B.C. are skyrocketing. That is the case elsewhere in Canada as a result of the gutting of funds from post-secondary education and that is something that is of huge concern to all of us, particularly to students who are facing a massive debtload. Let us get the facts straight here. I would like to see in the government response today and in future responses government members acknowledging the leadership that B.C. has taken to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to students.

We are calling on the federal government to demonstrate and to show that same kind of leadership across the country by instituting a national freeze on tuition fees and instituting a national program of grants for students in Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-36, the budget implementation act. There has been much debate about this bill already in committee and certainly in the House coming out of the budget that was presented. We have heard a lot of discussion about the millennium fund and whether it will improve the situation for post-secondary education.

Having looked at the document in committee where some of this discussion has taken place it is quite clear that post-secondary education is in a very deep crisis. One of the reasons that we are facing a crisis with post-secondary education is the retreat of public funding to our post-secondary educational facilities.

Although we have heard a lot of talk about the millennium fund, this grand fund of $2.5 billion, the reality is this fund will not even begin until the year 2000 and will in reality help only about 7% of students.

By the time the fund begins in the year 2000 we will have experienced cuts of around $3 billion from post-secondary education. So it becomes very clear that the millennium fund does not even come close to replacing and compensating for the massive drain and cuts we have experienced in post-secondary education.

This is causing enormous concern in terms of where public policy is going but also for the impact it is having on the lives of individual students. It is because of the retreat of public funding that tuition fees have skyrocketed. We have seen an increase of 240% in tuition fees over the last 10 years. We have all used the figure that average student debt is now at $25,000.

There is a direct relationship between the pain and the debtload students are facing and the retreat of public funding as a result of a loss of transfers from the federal government to the provincial government. There is absolutely no escaping that fact, and the millennium fund cannot make up and does not make up for the loss we have experienced.

In addition, the other really serious situation that the millennium fund creates is it begins to take us down a slippery slope of privatization.

New Democrats are very concerned that with this foundation, a private foundation being set up which will have representation from corporations in the private sector, there will be less and less control in terms of public administration and public direction of our post-secondary educational facilities.

For that reason alone, this fund should be rejected and we should go back to the drawing board and say that the real issue here is to support publicly administered, publicly accessible post-secondary educational facilities.

We have already seen examples in Canada where the corporate influence on board of governors of universities and colleges and now on this millennium fund is beginning to have an impact on curriculum of deregulation of tuition fees and deregulation of programs. All these things are creating an environment where there is increasing privatization and corporatization of our post-secondary educational system.

The millennium fund is a part of that direction and for that reason must be rejected.

The NDP believes very strongly that we must have an open discussion with the provinces because education is a provincial jurisdiction. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have pointed out very well the huge concerns they have with the millennium fund. It is not only in Quebec. This is echoed across the country in terms of unilateral decisions being taken by the federal government with regard to post-secondary education and the establishment of this private foundation with no consultation whatsoever with provincial jurisdictions.

The NDP believes we need to have leadership from the federal government. It needs to be the kind of leadership done in co-operation and collaboration with provincial jurisdictions to design a national program of national grants that deals with different provincial jurisdictions and different provincial contexts where there is a clear understanding and a principle that accessibility for all students in Canada is a national standard.

The NDP believes that is the starting point of ensuring that our post-secondary education system is protected and strengthened and not destroyed as we have seen over the last few years.

Canada is one of only two OECD countries that do not have a national grant system. We need to ensure federal funding is provided in co-operation with provincial governments to establish a national system of grants.

In my province of British Columbia as well as in the province of Quebec there has been leadership shown in terms of trying to keep education accessible for students even in the face of massive cutbacks.

In British Columbia we are now in the third year of a tuition freeze. That has been very difficult to accomplish given the massive cutbacks we have experienced in transfers from the federal government.

The NDP is calling on the federal government to show the leadership that is necessary. We have heard a lot of rhetoric and concern expressed by government members about the level of students debt, but there is nothing in this bill that will really alleviate the pressure and the huge debtload now facing students.

I have talked to students in my riding and here in the Ottawa area and have been really shocked to hear stories of students who are now facing debts of $40,000, $50,000, $60,000. What kind of way is that to start a life?

We need to go back to the drawing board and say clearly that this millennium fund is taking us down the wrong road. We need a national grant system. We need accessibility. Most important of all, we need restoration of federal funding for post-secondary education in Canada.

[Job Creation, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the finance minister.

The minister's rosy portrait of the economy ignores the glaring condemnation of the council of welfare and now Statistic Canada, two of our most respected organizations. It is a tragedy that there are 1.2 million more Canadians living in poverty than in 1990. Hungry people do not need empty speeches. They need jobs to fill empty stomachs.

When will the minister stop taking credit for jobs that are substandard or do not exist and initiate a job creation program that works?

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, opposition to the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI, has been massive and is still growing.

It is not just the citizens of Canada who are realizing that the MAI is a very bad deal. Also our provincial governments are beginning to realize what a bad deal it is in terms of provincial jurisdiction.

In March of this year I asked a question of the Prime Minister, expressing increasing concern that, for example, in my province of British Columbia government initiatives like the jobs and timber accord and legislation to protect young people from the exploitation of tobacco companies are threatened by the MAI.

The response I received from the government was pathetic. What I was told by the government is: “There is nothing in the negotiations that would threaten the ability of Canada to function and operate its own house”.

Canadians know and understand differently. More and more Canadians are understanding that the fundamental impact of the MAI will be to undermine our democratic institutions and to undermine the ability of elected governments to set public policy in the public interest.

In British Columbia the provincial government is so concerned about the impact of the MAI that an all-party committee to undertake public consultation has been struck. The mandate of the special committee is to inquire into and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the MAI through broad public consultation.

Members of the committee will be appointed shortly and the committee is expected to report to the provincial legislature in British Columbia in the coming year.

In speaking to this issue in B.C. the minister responsible, Mr. Farnworth, said make no mistake, the MAI is not dead. While he expressed optimism that the MAI treaty was not signed in Paris when it was anticipated, he does point out, and I and many other Canadians would concur, it is imperative that we take advantage of this delay to continue to press the federal government to have full public debate and hearings and finally to stop this deal from going through.

The minister for employment and investment, Mr. Farnworth, from British Columbia has written to the Minister for International Trade calling on the federal government to hold hearings in all regions of the country and has advised the federal minister not to assume that the MAI will automatically cover provincial measures.

Canadians want to know why the Liberals are so afraid to debate this issue of the MAI. I have been involved in a number of debates in my own riding and in Vancouver where not one Liberal would show up to the debate.

We are calling on the government today to be honest about the MAI, to tell Canadians why it is that it is pushing it through. We want to say to the government that the opposition is increasing. There will be such opposition that we believe the deal will not go through.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today in the House to speak in support of my colleague's motion, M-75, regarding the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion.

I have had personal experience with members of the Mac-Paps who have worked so courageously to bring forward this issue. I would like to congratulate the member for Kamloops for bringing forward this motion to provide understanding and education about this issue and to bring forward to Canadians the wrong that was done to the 1,300 volunteers who very bravely went to fight fascism before it was understood even by the Canadian government at the time.

When we read the history of the Mac-Paps we see the courage that these men and women had and the dedication they displayed in fighting fascism. The fact that they were then vilified and castigated by not just the Canadian government but by the RCMP and by society generally is something that is a real black mark in the history of Canada.

I think what this motion does is bring this issue back to the Canadian people, to say that we must give recognition to this noble and heroic group of Canadians who were willing to stand up to be counted, to make a personal sacrifice, to go to another country because they believed so strongly in defending democracy not only in Canada but also abroad.

One of the real tragedies of this situation is that when many of these brave Canadians tried to enlist in the Canadian Armed Forces during the second world war, they were denied and told they were politically unreliable, these Canadians who had made this commitment.

This is a motion where members of this House can remember the history here. It allows us to give recognition to what is regrettably a very small group of remaining veterans. There are about 40 members of the Mac-Paps who are still alive. It is important that we remember what they did. It is important that we right a wrong in history. It is important that all parties and all members of this House stand up and give recognition to the work and the commitment the Mac-Paps have made.

I ask other members of the House to put aside partisan politics, to put aside what may have happened back in 1936 and to say that these Canadians must be recognized. What better place to do that than in the House of Commons. There are members of the community, members of their families, their children and their grandchildren who are watching this debate. They are watching to see what we do in the House of Commons to give acknowledgement to the sacrifice these people have made, many of whom have now died.

I call on members of the House to do the honourable and right thing, to recognize the Mac-Paps and to see what we can do to grant some form of recognition to this truly heroic and courageous group of Canadians.

[Poverty, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy prime minister spouts empty rhetoric while children go hungry.

The truth is that federal support for welfare, health and education has been slashed by $3 billion since 1996 and poor people are paying the price. They are standing in food lines, living in shelters and raising kids on welfare rates that keep them in poverty.

Will the government replenish transfers to the provinces and ease the suffering of the poorest of Canada's citizens?