Libby Davies

[Combating Terrorism Act, September 21st, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his very thoughtful comments on Bill C-17. I think the member has spoken in this House every time this bill has been before the House. It is a measure of his concern and commitment which is certainly shared by my colleagues about the importance and the serious implications of this bill. I very much appreciate the history that he has given today and what he has reflected upon in trying to bring it forward in our Parliament.

One thing that strikes me in listening to his comments is that in today's Quorum, which has newspaper clippings from across the country, there is not one mention of this legislation being debated, but we can see page after page of stories on the gun registry. In talking about balance, if we could weigh those things, it makes me wonder how much the public is aware. People probably are not aware, other than those people who might be watching this debate on CPAC. When it comes to public awareness of this kind of legislation and the long-term impact it has on Canadian society and on our criminal justice system, I just do not think people have a clue. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

The member has spoken to this issue in the House a number of times. We have tried to get information out to let people know that this is coming up, that it is really serious and we need to pay attention to it. It is so unfortunate when we see all of the attention going to something like the vote on the gun registry and no attention going to this issue which of course will have a huge impact on everybody in Canada.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With respect to non-permanent residents identified by 9 series temporary Social Insurance Numbers, for each of the tax years 2004-2009: (a) how many T4s were issued to these individuals; (b) how many T1s were filed by and processed for these individuals; (c) how many of these individuals made an overpayment over the course of the tax year and failed to file a T1; (d) what was the average tax overpayment left unclaimed by these individuals who were issued a T4 but did not file a T1; (e) what was the total amount of tax overpayment left unclaimed by these individuals who were issued a T4 but did not file a T1; (f) how many of these individuals had a balance owing and failed to file a T1; (g) what was the average balance owing left unpaid by these individuals who were issued a T4 but did not file a T1; and (h) what was the total amount of balance owing left unpaid by these individuals who were issued a T4 but did not file a T1?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2010]

With regard to the Renovation and Retrofit of Social Housing Program, by province and territory: (a) how many applications were received under the program; (b) how many applications met the criteria; (c) how many applications were accepted; (d) how many applications that met the criteria were turned down and for what reason; (e) how many and which of the projects are for cooperative housing; (f) how much of the $1 billion has been allocated to date; (g) how much of this money has been delivered and how much has been spent; (h) how many projects will be completed by the March 2011 deadline; and (i) how many projects will exceed the March 2011 deadline and which of these projects will be terminated or left incomplete because they will not meet the deadline?

[Status of Women, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the B.C. government's recent decision to undertake a public inquiry into the investigation of the downtown eastside's murdered and missing women. Families and friends deserve answers as to why the disappearance of their daughters, sisters, mothers and friends was overlooked for so long.

For decades, law enforcement policies played a real part in allowing over 60 women to go missing from the downtown eastside with little notice from authorities. Society failed these women at every turn. A public inquiry into the actions of law enforcement and the judicial system must rectify these failures and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

I call on the federal government and the RCMP to fully co-operate and assist in the inquiry. We must also engage in a community-led process that allows the downtown eastside to deal with the trauma and impact on so many lives. Mistakes, discrimination, racism, harmful laws and policies must be identified and then rectified.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-559, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (social condition).

Mr. Speaker, this is the companion bill to the one I just introduced. I would like to thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt for seconding this bill.

This bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of social condition. In doing so it would protect from discrimination people who are experiencing social or economic disadvantage, such as adequate housing, homelessness, source of income, occupation, level of education, poverty, or any similar circumstance. As the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation and many other organizations have pointed out, a person's standing in society is often determined by his or her occupation, income, education level or family background.

As legislators, we know that we must be aware that tools are very much needed to promote and protect the economic and social rights of Canadians. This bill would send an important message to the public that people who are disadvantaged because of their social condition are equally deserving of dignity and protection from discrimination.

I hope that all members of the House will support this bill.

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

[Criminal Code, June 17th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-558, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (social condition).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to rise in the House today to present this bill. I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for seconding this bill.

This bill is very important because it amends provisions of the Criminal Code to establish principles related to sentencing and describe the aggravating circumstances that require increased sentences to be imposed.

The bill requires an increased sentence where there is evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social condition of the victim.

This bill is the companion to another bill that I will be introducing on social condition. It is done in recognition that there are people in our society who are disadvantaged because of social condition, because of poverty, homelessness, education and background and that they do face prejudice and discrimination. It is very important that we have the tools to address the reality they face in their daily lives.

I hope that all members will support this bill. This issue has been before the House many times. In fact, there have been many studies on the issue of social condition and how people do not have protection. This bill is aimed at addressing that to ensure there is dignity and respect for people based on social condition.

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

[On to Ottawa Trek, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, on the 75th anniversary of the historic “On to Ottawa Trek”, I am proud to welcome eight modern day homelessness trekkers from my riding of Vancouver East, who are here in Ottawa.

Am Johal, Diana Hart, Al Mitchell, Georges Maltais, Shawn Millar, David Murray, John Richardson and Garvin Snider left Vancouver on June 6 to re-enact the 1935 workers' protest against poor wages and abysmal working conditions in government camps during the Great Depression.

This wonderful group is also marking the end of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay, which I was honoured to participate in.

These groups and over 50 major Canadian organizations are calling on the government to support a national housing strategy and to vote yes to Bill C-304.

[Privilege, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in your examination of this motion that is being proposed today by the member for St. John's East and in considering the agreement that you will see later, it is important to look at the difference between the agreement in principle that was reached by all parties in the House on May 14 and the agreement that will be before you today. Our opinion is that there is a clear departure from where your ruling started, the agreement in principle and where we are at today in terms of how these documents are to be treated and what process is used. I think that is a key point.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to draw to your attention and to make it clear that in our motion that is being proposed here it is very clear that if the government does not comply in giving access to all documents, as outlined in our motion and the memorandum of understanding, there is a provision in our motion for the House then to follow up with a motion of contempt, so that rather than going back to the beginning with a question of privilege, it would immediately flow in terms of going to a question of contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make that clear as you consider this matter and all of the factors that are involved. We understand that it is a very important decision but your ruling did talk about the need for all parties and all leaders to arrive at an agreement and that has not been the case. It is important that you look at what has transpired here, from the agreement in principle to the details that we are now at, and whether it does indeed meet the intent and the substance of the ruling that you made. In our opinion, it does not.

[Documents Regarding Mission in Afghanistan, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the NDP.

Having heard the other parties, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that we in the NDP participated in this process and attended every meeting. We acted in good faith and put forward proposals on part of the negotiations.

However, Mr. Speaker, today our leader and our caucus came to the understanding that we could not sign this agreement that we heard about this morning because we believe there are significant flaws and problems, to an extent that we cannot sign on to this agreement.

I will say that at all times the NDP advocated a process that would protect legitimate national security concerns and the safety of our troops but we believe the process and the agreement that has been arrived at by the other three parties undermines the right of Parliament to hold the government accountable. That was central to your historic ruling, Mr. Speaker.

The committee that was set up was not even a parliamentary committee that will report back to Parliament. It is clear that there will not be full access to documents. The very fundamental issue of getting at the truth of what happened to the detainees in terms of torture and the Canadian government's involvement in that, we are very concerned that this agreement and this process that has been agreed to will not arrive at that truth. We therefore made a decision today that we could not participate in that agreement.

We will continue to do our work in this House to hold the government to account and to ensure the truth does come out.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware that in a short while the member for St. John's East will be rising in the House to present a motion. This will be happening in short order.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has also been presented a number of times in this House. It is signed by individuals across the country who are very concerned about the situation facing KAIROS, a Canadian ecumenical justice initiatives group that provides sustainable development, human rights and peace through education, advocacy and co-operation programs, linking more than 21 organizations in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

The petitioners are very concerned about the program cuts and the funding cuts that have happened to KAIROS. They call upon the Government of Canada to immediately restore its funding relationship with KAIROS and to fund the organization's overseas program for the period of 2010-13.