Libby Davies

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for explaining so well the impact of the closures in his community, because we are facing the same thing in the city of Vancouver with the closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

What is really surprising, listening to Conservative members, is that they are ignoring all of the local expertise on the ground, people who know the trade, who know the marine life. It is really quite shocking that it has somehow gone out the window, despite the fact that we have had Conservative members who have claimed they had consultation.

I wonder if the hon. member could inform us whether he is aware that there was any consultation in his community, because there certainly was not in ours.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the members for St. John's East and New Westminster—Coquitlam for coming to Vancouver and hearing from so many people. The closing down of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station is a very hot topic in the city of Vancouver.

We know that five million people travel through Vancouver's harbour each year. We also know that although the Jericho Sailing Centre has a 40-member volunteer rescue team, the general manager, Mr. Cotter, made it very clear that there is absolutely no way they would be able to respond. The federal government should not be relying on a small volunteer operation to basically shoulder the responsibility that the Coast Guard and the federal government have.

I wonder if the member could comment on that. It seems absurd that a small organization is somehow meant to pick up the slack when there are so many people moving through Vancouver's harbour.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to support Bill C-279, which is An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code in regard to gender identity and gender expression.

This bill has had a long history, and I want to first of all thank the NDP member from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for the tremendous work that he has done on this new version of the bill, as it has been in previous Parliaments. He has done an incredible amount of work within Parliament and by talking to individual members of Parliament and helping people understand the importance of this bill and what it means. He has also done significant work in the community, not just in the trans community but in the broader community, to bring about a better understanding of this bill. I certainly want to pay tribute and give respect to the work that my colleague has done.

This bill has actually had a long history. It was first introduced in the House in, I believe, 2005, and again in 2006 and then again in 2008 by Bill Siksay, who was the former member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas. He too did an incredible amount of work. It was a great day when the bill actually did pass in the House of Commons, as the member for Vancouver Quadra just noted a few minutes ago.

In February 2011, it did actually go into the Senate. Had it not been for the election, it is very possible that the bill would have gone through the Senate and would now be law. That history is interesting because it gives a sense of the importance of private members' business, bills and motions and of how we have to keep plugging away and working at an issue. Sometimes it can be a very long and difficult road, with barriers and frustrations and sometimes elections arising before the goal of having a bill finally approved is reached.

This bill and its history have been quite remarkable. I want us to reflect on that today, because this is the fourth time around with this bill. It has already passed in a Parliament. We have an opportunity here today to do something historic, which is to affirm the rights of transgendered, transsexual and gender-variant Canadians who do not have the same degree of protection for their rights and freedoms as all other Canadians. That is why this bill is seeking to remedy that gap in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

I know some Conservative members may just oppose the bill outright. I would have serious questions about that, because it is a bill based on establishing our understanding about human rights and protection under the law. Other members may support the issue in principle but may believe that the bill is possibly not necessary and that somehow that protection already exists. However, I think we need to be very clear that although other minority groups do have protection under human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, those rights are not guaranteed specifically to transgendered, transsexual and gender-variant Canadians because they are not identified as an identifiable group. While the charter now spells out race, nationality, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted, it does not include transgendered persons. Therefore, it is really important that we actually make this move.

I would point out that the Canadian Human Rights Act review panel in 2000 recommended that these changes take place. In other words, an independent evaluation beyond this bill in Parliament came to the same conclusion, the conclusion that these changes are needed.

I would also point out that gender identity and gender expression are grounds for protection under the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, to which Canada was a signatory back in 2008, so we can see the international frame for this as well as see that our own experts in Canada are saying that this change needs to take place.

The bill is very timely. It is warranted. It has already been approved by a previous Parliament, so I am very hopeful that we will see our way here, on all sides of the House, to have the bill go through at second reading and pass on to committee.

The support in the community has been quite magnificent. A lot of people have worked very hard on this bill. They include the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, as I pointed out earlier, and also groups like Egale Canada, Jer's Vision, Gender Mosaic, Ottawa Trans PULSE Project and Trans Pride Canada.

These groups, and many individuals as well, have worked very hard to bring about greater awareness of issues facing transgendered people and greater awareness that discrimination still exists in daily life. Whether we consider health care or employment, housing or social interactions and social acceptance, there is still discrimination, there is still persecution and there is still violence.

It is very interesting. When the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke in the first hour of debate, he laid out very well some of the reports that have been done. One done by Trans PULSE Project Canada, for example, shows that the level of depression among transgendered Canadians is as high as 61% to 66%, and there are issues around mental health. This all has to do with people feeling they are excluded, that they are facing discrimination and harassment, so it is very important that we address this inequality.

A bill like this is really just the first step. Putting something into law, enshrining a right and improving and strengthening the rights that we have, is surely the most important and significant first step that needs to be done, but it is only the beginning. From there, we have to ensure continual vigilance to make sure those rights and protections are upheld because, unfortunately, much discrimination still takes place, so the application of the law and an understanding about the law are really important.

We as legislators, as parliamentarians, have a really important leadership role to play in making it clear that we live in a society where, in our own communities and our own constituencies, we have transgendered constituents and that all people have the right to protection and dignity and respect under the law.

We can begin at that place, but we have to go further. We have to make sure, for example, that there is equal access to health care. Transgendered Canadians often find it very difficult to access health care services and are often denied medically necessary care. They are forced to deal with the issue of their gender before they can access the service. There are many examples, including not having equal access to surgery, an inequality that certainly exists in the provinces where there are different variations and standards. Some very important issues need to be dealt with, but first and foremost we need to get the bill through.

I want to appeal to all members of the House. This is a vote on principle in this bill, and if we accept the principle of what the bill is laying out, then let us get it to committee. At committee we can have a very constructive discussion about the bill, and there may possibly be amendments. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who brought the bill forward, has made it very clear and has shown in all of his work that he wants to engage, hear different points of view and find a way that the bill can be supported by all sides.

We have something very strong and healthy here. We are very close to getting this bill through, so again I want to appeal to all members of the House to consider the principles of the bill, which are about the protection of all Canadians in human rights and dignity and respect, and to allow the bill to go to committee so that there can be a further discussion in much more detail.

I am proud to be here today. Our NDP caucus, the official opposition, is 100% behind the bill, and we really hope other members of the House will find their way to support this bill as well and let it go to committee.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee so I did not hear the witnesses, but I certainly talked with my colleagues who were on the committee and I heard a very similar description of what took place at committee. There is a lot of concern about what it means in not only Canada's reputation, but what our obligations are under various conventions for refugees. The bill, if it goes through, there is the suggestion that it will violate the charter in terms of arbitrary detention, so it may well face a legal challenge and there may be other challenges on how it contravenes international conventions.

Again, one would think this would give the government some pause for thought to think about what our role is in the international community. However, it appears that it is not willing to be thoughtful, that it does have a very political mission on the bill, and that is to create this them and us situation to focus on abuse and in the process deny many legitimate refugees the opportunity to be in our country.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I guess they do not want to hear the answer, but I will continue.

Any group that has examined this bill has come to the same conclusion as the NDP, that the bill should be defeated.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great fear that the changes in the bill that will give the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism more power will mean that the system will not work the way it used to. I guess it is a matter of trust. I simply do not trust that minister nor his government to engage in a fair process. I think they have another agenda. That is why we feel so very concerned about the bill.

Whatever the minister might put forward today, at the end of the day the bill is about the process, about the minister's powers and the potential of what could happen. We can say very clearly, along with every other group that has examined this bill—

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I kind of wish I did not have to speak to Bill C-31 at report stage because it is a bill that we in the NDP very much oppose. We are very concerned about its passage through report stage and on to third reading.

Our colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, has worked so hard in committee. She tried valiantly to make amendments to the bill at committee to improve it.

I will begin my remarks by reflecting on the history of the bill. It has an interesting history. There was an original bill which was amended to become Bill C-11, as a result of the Conservative government being in a minority Parliament. It was interesting that at that time there was some co-operation and collaboration to actually remove some of the worst aspects of the bill and to move forward with a bill that was more acceptable to members of Parliament. Of course, now there is a majority Conservative government and it is very disturbing to see that what the Conservatives did was rather than continue with former Bill C-11, they came back with a bill that is quite horrifying in terms of what it will do.

What I find disturbing is that when we hear the speeches from the government members, on the one hand they say that the bill is all about fairness and balance and that we are going to be treating refugees in a proper way and respecting international conventions and Canada's history around refugees. Then on the other hand, everything that comes out of the Conservatives' mouths is basically about abuse of the system.

It is the same kind of mantra we hear so much on the government's legislation around law and order, the Criminal Code and criminal justice. It is always about focusing on what the Conservatives see as abuse and changing laws in massive widespread ways that have an impact on society as a whole. It is a very disturbing pattern that we have seen with the government. It is a tactic the Conservatives use to divide people.

There are fears about people coming to Canada. People have many fears, but when we see a government deliberately playing on those fears and exploiting people's concerns, whether it is about immigration, refugees, or whatever it might be, it feels really bad. It feels like this is absolutely what we should not be doing. Our laws should be based on overall merit, objectivity and the public interest, rather than singling out abuse. We have seen that many times in the political environment. An example would be the attacks on people who are poor, who live on welfare. We call it poor-bashing, where laws are designed to basically scapegoat people on welfare when the rate of abuse is no more than for people in the financial sector who are involved in abuse. It becomes very much a class issue, a term which we do not use very often in the House. It becomes a way of singling people out, of targeting particular segments of our community by saying there are good people and bad people, there are criminals and there are victims, making that very simplistic division.

I wanted to begin that way because we see it so often in much of the legislation that is coming forward. Unfortunately, Bill C-31 is no different. It is a bill, like many other bills from the Conservative government, that confers greater power and authority on the minister.

I am the health critic for the NDP. We have seen recent changes in the health field around the Food and Drugs Act that will do the same thing for the Minister of Health. It will confer much greater power in terms of decision-making away from expert advice, away from a broader notion of public interest. It becomes much more of a partisan, and I would say ideological, decision-making process. Bill C-31 which deals with our refugee system is no different and in fact is probably worse.

There are many reasons to oppose the bill. One is that it concentrates more power in the minister's hands. For example, he would designate what are safe countries without any advice from independent experts.

Another major concern is it will restrict access to the humanitarian and compassionate consideration grounds for a refugee. This will be very problematic. It means that people will have to claim, at the beginning of the process, whether they will file for refugee status or humanitarian and compassionate grounds consideration. This will be a huge issue because people may not know at that point which avenue they will need to pursue. As it is now, people can go through the process and they can also file on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and know it is a due process on which they can rely.

The big concern is the arbitrary designation of so-called irregular arrivals and all that means, This raises huge alarm bells. I remember reading over the years what had occurred in places like Australia where it had mandatory detention and the kind of xenophobia and violent public discourse that took place as a result of that kind of government practice and legislation. Many of us feel this is something Canada now seems to be embarking upon. It is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I feel very concerned because when we have the minister making decisions without expert advice, those decisions can become very political and partisan. Yes, we are in politics, we all make political decisions, but when we deal with something as fundamental as a refugee process that is governed under international, UN and Geneva conventions, how we approach that is critical. Therefore, having the minister saying what is a safe country or saying that, for example, the European Union is not a safe country misses the complexity of our global environment.

I recently saw a film called Never Come Back, which is about the Roma in Canada. The film begins by speaking about Roma people who have settled in, particularly in the communities of Hamilton and Toronto. At the beginning, we think these are great contributors to the local society. There were people working in schools and long-term care facilities as cleaners and in pizza places and they had a soccer team. We wonder whether these people have been persecuted or are they refugees. Then the film takes us back to their home communities and we see the unbelievable persecution that the Roma had experienced, which was horrifying. It is something that is going on as neo-Nazism, xenophobia and violence against targeted minorities grow.

It is very alarming that the simplistic approach of the bill and the fact that it would give the minister so much power would possibly mean that many people who would be refugees legitimately fleeing persecution, hard-working Canadians who will make an enormous contribution to our society when they come here, would be cast aside for political reasons. We have been told that the bill is about getting at abuse. There is this heavy-handed approach at basically eliminating the possibility of many legitimate people from also coming through.

That is only a bit of what I wanted to say. However, it is another sad day that this legislation will go through. The bill has been resoundingly criticized by every major organization that deals with this issue. Even new groups, like the Canadian Doctors for Refugees in Canada, are so concerned about regulatory changes involving refugees and their health coverage. Because of that, they formed a new group and 50 of them visited the offices of elected members. We have not seen this before. I think it is because this kind of legislation will impact so many levels of our society that people who have not spoken out before are now saying they have to speak out.

We hope that possibly some of our amendments on report stage will be approved. I am skeptical about this, but nevertheless we will continue to speak out against this kind of legislation.

[Housing, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister knows that the federal investment was a one-time deal that ended and fell far short of what actually needs to be done for affordable housing in this country. The fact is that over 600,000 families in Canada rely on social housing. With the end of the federal money, low-income households will see their housing costs skyrocket, leading to more insecurity.

Why is the government so oblivious to maintaining the affordability of the social housing we have, like co-ops, and ignoring the desperate plight of Canadians who still remain homeless today? Why is the minister not addressing that?

[Housing, June 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the City of Vancouver shows that homelessness doubled in the last year. Despite this urgent crisis, the government has not invested a dime for housing in the budget. In fact, it was not even mentioned.

How can the government justify no new federal investments when housing in Vancouver is so unaffordable or non-existent for so many? Vancouver's city council has led the way to end homelessness, but it cannot do it alone.

Will the government heed Vancouver's call to invest in housing to keep thousands more people from becoming homeless in the next two years, which is what it is predicted ?

[Restoring Rail Service Act, May 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would point out there is too much noise on one side of the House. Those members are disrespectful even of debate in the House. In fact, they despise anything public about the public.

I am proud to be here tonight, no matter what the hour, no matter what the circumstances of this gag debate, no matter what the votes, to speak out with my colleagues in the NDP, who are not afraid to uphold the public interest of fair labour practices, safety for workers and their families and safety for Canadians overall.

As the member for Outremont and leader of the official opposition said, “With every piece of back-to-work legislation—and every ideologically driven change to our laws—the Conservatives are chipping away at what Canadians have worked so hard to build”. We are standing up tonight against the bill, clause by clause, line by line, because we believe in something quite fundamental, the basic premise that in a free and democratic society, workers have the right to collective bargaining and the right to dignity and respect.

The Conservatives choose the corporate board rooms and are quite happy to put their feet up on the table with ease and comfort with their corporate buddies. We do not.

The CPR executives are raking in millions at the expense of their employees. The government has tilted the scales heavily in favour of the employer. We choose to keep the scales in a fair balance and to ensure that the rights of workers in Canada are upheld and respected.