Libby Davies

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I like the idea that the bill is getting so much debate. I know the government is now hopping mad because it thinks it has had too much debate. These agreements are often dry and clinical because they are conceived by bureaucrats and put together in wordy documents. The fact that it is here in the House and that parliamentarians in Canada are fighting this bill in solidarity with the people of Colombia is something pretty important.

The member made some very good comments differentiating between free trade and fair trade. I think more and more people in Canada want to be proactive on the notion of fair trade and that we cannot separate trade from other issues of human rights, labour rights, environmental rights, social rights and social justice. Gone are the days when these trade agreements can just be rammed through as the government thinks it can do.

I would like the member to elaborate on the fact that we now live in a different world where people are much more proactive about these agreements and are saying that they will not go through.

[Petitions, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to table a petition from residents who are very concerned about the fact that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation funding is going to end on March 31. They draw to our attention something that we all know and that is that the residential schools caused extensive physical and mental trauma experienced by the survivors that was also passed on to future generations.

They tell us in very clear terms that the foundation has had a mandate in encouraging and supporting aboriginal people in building and reinforcing sustainable healing processes that address the legacy of physical and sexual abuse in the residential school system.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to leave a true legacy of action to the residential school survivors through an extension of funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of really good information shows that individual countries, whether it is the EU or Norway, have contributed significant resources. In the case of Norway, it has donated $1.2 billion or something like that, a huge amount of funds. These countries are living up to their commitment to the millennium development goals. We want to see that in Canada.

We know there are divisions within the Conservative caucus and likely within the Liberal caucus, but we have to get over that. This is about Canada's position globally. This is about women's health and women's equality. This is about the rights of women. We have to focus on that. The motion before us today helps us do that, and I think it has very strong support from the community.

We should stand very proud at the G8 conference and go there with a strong position. However, if we end up with this kind of lopsided Conservative view of what family planning is and what women's equality is, then we are taking steps backward. I hope that does not happen. There is a very strong message from members of the House today that if we are to do this, we have to do it properly. We have to put women and their rights first.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but there has been a wealth of literature, some of which I quoted today, in terms of definitions around family planning.

The World Health Organization and the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, which is part of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, make it very clear in their literature and research that family planning has to include a full range of choices available to individual women around their reproductive rights.

There is no question about this. I do not think this is even debatable. Major organizations under the UN and organizations in Canada agree. If we do not accept that, we are saying that we are somehow forcing our own opinion on the choices women have, on their liberty and on their ability to make choices about their bodies and reproductive rights. To me that is a fundamental human right for women. We have to stand by that.

Individual members may have individual views on this, but to me it is a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice on whether to have an abortion. If one does, it is something that should be done in a safe and medically sound environment.

Part of the debate here is to ensure we carry that as a very strong and clear message. Otherwise, we are saying that we do not really support women's equality or women's rights. Let us be very clear on that.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important debate. It is important that members of the House be able to express their strong opinions about this issue. The government's G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world's poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with previous governments that have stated that position, as well as all other G8 members last year in Italy. I certainly welcome this debate.

First and foremost, we have to insist that any initiative Canada takes forward must be based on scientific evidence as outlined in the motion before us today. That scientific evidence shows us that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths. That is a very significant statistic.

We are throwing around numbers and arguments and I hear the Conservatives claiming that this debate has been politicized. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is important that we stick to the facts and the scientific evidence about what needs to be done globally by Canada within the international community to prevent these kinds of deaths from taking place.

Looking at the statistics and facts that are available, it truly is shocking that more than 500 women die each year in pregnancy and nine million children die before the age of five. These deaths are entirely preventable if we set clear goals, objectives and outcomes and dedicate the necessary resources to ensure that very simple measures take place so that maternal and child health is made a primary priority.

For every woman who dies, there are 20 or more who experience serious complications as a result of their pregnancies. In fact, the World Health Organization has documented over and over again that the first step to avoiding maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortions. That is a stated fact by the main UN body that monitors these things and does research. Anyone who disputes that is under some kind of strange illusion about what is going on in the world. It is important that we stick to the scientific evidence.

Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, or are too early or too late in a woman's life. This is a very real issue for women in the developing world. They need to have the education, be aware of prevention and have access to family planning at a grassroots level.

This is not rocket science. These are very basic provisions in supporting and empowering women and ensuring that they can carry safe pregnancies, engage in family planning and have control over it. To me, that is probably the most important thing. It is emphasized by the Stephen Lewis Foundation that when women have control over their own bodies and lives, when they can make their own decisions without a lot of resources, and we are talking about there being minimal resources for them, we will see a dramatic transformation take place. That is what the motion is trying to get at today.

The Conservative government has suddenly found this issue and stated that its goal is to focus on maternal and child health. It is important to point out because credibility on the record is something that counts here. It is fair to say that the Conservatives have very little credibility on issues affecting women in the developing world. Let us not forget that they are the ones who did away with the terms of gender equality, gender-based violence, impugnity and justice when calling for an end to sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We in the NDP certainly welcome this interest that the Conservatives have suddenly developed in the health of mothers and children in the developing world, but it has to be on a comprehensive basis. It cannot be based on some sort of narrow ideological view. It has to be based on the scientific and factual evidence that is available globally, that has been developed by the United Nations, the World Health Organization and many other organizations.

It will undermine Canada's credibility if we do not advance these proposals in that broad way at the G8, if it becomes so narrowly focused with this conservative view, we become another embarrassment, just as happened in Copenhagen on climate change. I think Canadians feel pretty awful about what happens when we are on the international stage. The G8 is coming to Toronto. We have an opportunity to do something right, to express the will of the House and to do it in a comprehensive evidence-based way. I hope that is what will happen today.

Having said all of that, on the issue of credibility, a very stark question we have to ask is why the government is advancing this on the international stage, and yet here at home we still have appalling conditions for women and children in Canada. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

In my community of East Vancouver, there are women and children who are living far below the poverty line. They are living in slum housing. They are not getting enough food to eat. They do not have enough access to community-level health care provisions. There is no child care, or the waiting list is so long and child care is so expensive that the children cannot get in.

While we deal with the situation internationally, we are compelled to focus on what is happening in Canada also. These issues are not mutually exclusive. They do not cancel out each other. We demand of our government that it address both issues, that it address poverty here in Canada and poverty globally. They are very much interrelated in that it becomes a question of where resources go. If we did have a properly functioning gender analysis, whether it is on the budget that was just approved or whether it is on bills that come forward, there would be a much better analysis and a much better allocation of resources, instead of the incredible ideological and political frame that we have had to go through time and time again with the Conservative government.

I want to say in the strongest terms that I support the millennium development goals. I support Canada's advancing this initiative as long as it is done in broad terms and it does not exclude family planning and access to safe abortions for women globally. I also feel very strongly that we have to set our sights on what is happening in our own communities. We have to recognize what is taking place in aboriginal communities. We have to recognize there are rural situations but there are also urban situations where people endure simply unliveable conditions which should not exist in this country.

Many organizations have done tremendous work on this issue not just over the last year or so but over the decades. I talked to a woman in the lobby a few minutes ago who told me she had been working on this issue for 30 years and she is very glad that this motion is being debated in the House today. It is very important that we recognize the work that is being done.

The Conservatives have somewhat reversed their position. Initially they were refusing to incorporate family planning into the maternal health initiative, and clearly they were absolutely out of step with the international community. I have to say that to me, it was a good lesson of what politics is about, to see the pressure both within the House and also in the broader community that took place, that forced the Conservatives to change their position.

I applaud groups such as Action Canada for Population and Development, the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the Stephen Lewis Foundation and many others for the work they have done on this issue. They have made it clear that we will not tolerate a Conservative position that is so superficial it gives the illusion that it is helping women and children when in reality it is actually undermining the rights, freedoms and liberties of women and children not only in Canada but globally.

I hope the motion today will set us on the right course. Our leader and other members of our caucus have been raising this in question period. We will continue to press this matter until the Conservative government understands that if it wants to advance this proposal, it has to do it on the basis of supporting women's equality and women's rights and not denying women access to full services and programs, whether it be family planning or abortion. That is why this motion should pass today.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's comments, because he is right. A housing-first policy is so fundamental to any anti-poverty strategy. If people do not have secure, appropriate, affordable, safe housing, there is very little else in life they can deal with in a proper way, whether it is going to school or work or dealing with issues they might have.

This idea that we need to ensure that all Canadians have appropriate housing, no matter where they live or who they are, to me is a fundamental human right. This budget failed on that score. The money that is there is a leftover from the previous year. There is no new commitment to housing, and there is no long-term commitment to housing.

This goes back to a former Liberal government that cut out the federal government from the provision of housing. I will say that the homelessness we see on our streets today is a result of those disastrous decisions that were made more than a decade ago. That is what we are seeing not only in my community but in other communities. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not made it better. It has only made it worse.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, is it not just so typical of a Conservative member to pit one group of people against the other and say we are going to make rural people pay for an urban program?

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative so-called child care program has not created one single new child care space. It is an absolute failure in terms of addressing the urgent needs of families who need child care not only in urban areas but in smaller communities as well. Yes, parents should have a choice, but many parents want to choose a group child care setting because they understand the importance of early childhood development. For the Conservatives to pit one group of parents against another is truly shameful.

In terms of housing, that member should know that the money in the budget was already in the former economic stimulus plan. There is no new money. It is not an ongoing provision for affordable housing in this country. I will take him on a tour of the downtown east side if he wants, and he can see the crisis that is taking place there.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

For the second time in a year, the Conservatives shut down the work of Parliament. We know they did it to avoid the very important issues of Afghanistan and what happened to detainees.

I was very proud to attend the anti-prorogation rally that took place in Vancouver on January 23. It was wonderful to see the young people who came out to the rally. Some people had not been to a political protest before, but they came because they absolutely did not buy the very flimsy and transparent reasons the Prime Minister gave for proroguing the House.

Yesterday we debated the NDP motion to place limits on prorogation and prevent the abuses we have seen take place under the Conservative government. The NDP motion basically stated that if the House was to be prorogued for more than seven days, there had to be a resolution and vote in Parliament on the reasons for prorogation. I am very pleased the motion passed.

The reason the House was prorogued for five weeks was the government was supposedly recalibrating its agenda and setting a new agenda, with promises to listen to Canadians. When we heard the Speech from the Throne and the budget, there was no other conclusion but to say that it did not come up with anything new.

The things people in my community of Vancouver East need and have called for, whether it is child care reform, an end to homelessness, the need for affordable housing, protection for seniors or an end to the HST, none of those are included in the Speech from the Throne or the budget.

Several major organizations in Vancouver, child care groups like First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, when asked in the prebudget consultations, made it very clear to “Give priority to federal tax and program spending that will increase Canada’s investment in early childhood development”. They pointed out that for every dollar invested in child care, we put something like $2.30 back into the economy. That is an important economic and social investment, which helps women in the labour force and families overall.

When we compare the economic investment and the positive results, consider that the OECD and UNICEF rank Canada dead last in the provision of early learning and child care. We should be ashamed of that.

What did the Speech from the Throne and the budget produce in that regard? In terms of the Speech from the Throne, child care was mentioned exactly twice. Housing was only mentioned once compared to the crime agenda, which was mentioned 12 times. We begin to get a bit of a comparison of where the emphasis is by the government.

The only changes made in terms of anything to do with child care was a measly increase of $3.35 per week for the universal child care benefit. That will not create a single day care space, not in my riding, not anywhere else across the country. In fact, the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC called this measure one of the greatest failures, saying that the taxable $100 a month baby bonus “is NOT a child care program”.

This is a huge issue for working families. After housing in British Columbia, child care is the second highest cost facing B.C. families. That is astounding. I am going to speak about this in a couple of minutes. Housing is bad enough, but the second highest cost facing families is the cost of child care. In fact, $1,200 per month is the average cost of care for a child under three years.

In 2010 a metro Vancouver family with a four-year-old and a two-year-old in full-time child care will pay $23,700 annually in fees. That is astounding. For the average working family, that digs a big hole in its pockets and monthly income. Even for the child care spaces that are available, there are huge waiting lists.

Right across from my constituency office in Kingsway in Vancouver, the brand new Mount Pleasant Community Centre 3 Corners Child Care Centre was forced to shut down its waiting list. Why? It has over 400 names on the waiting list and it decided it did not want to give parents a false hope about getting their child into care when the list was already so long.

That is a pretty dismal record. It really disturbs me that this daily reality that the average family faces around child care and housing was not even addressed in the throne speech or the budget.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the housing issue. In my community of east Vancouver and the downtown eastside and in Vancouver generally, a crisis is taking place. I participated in some of the events during the Olympic period in Vancouver. For example, the Red Tent Campaign, which was organized by the Pivot Legal Society, had 500 emergency red tents established. A tent village was set up in a vacant lot on East Hastings Street that was to be used for parking for Vanoc vehicles because people were so desperate for housing.

We and other groups appealed to BC Housing to help find people shelter so they could move out of the tents into appropriate space. About 70 people did secure housing, but there is still a number of tents sitting in that vacant lot, on the mud, waiting for a proper housing solution to come forward. It is so outrageous, in a country as wealthy was Canada, that the Conservative government cannot give housing a priority.

I have a housing bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy and for the participation of all levels of government. It has huge support across the country, from municipalities, from first nations, from housing organizations, from faith groups. I hope when the bill comes back to the House for report stage and third reading, it will go through.

I could not believe there was nothing in the budget for housing. People in the downtown eastside, students, seniors, even families making modest incomes cannot afford affordable housing, whether it is in Vancouver or metro Vancouver generally. This was a huge failure in the Speech from the Throne.

It has been same with pensions. Our pension critic, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, has done a tremendous job in bringing forward the issue of pensions and the fact that people are getting ripped off in their private pension plans and that the public pension plan itself is not doing justice to people. Many seniors are living below the poverty line.

We know a modest investment of $700 million toward guaranteed income supplement payments would close the gap of poverty among seniors. It would be such a dignified and important thing to do. Did we see it? No. What did we see? Instead we saw the mad race to the bottom by the government giving away another $6 billion in corporate tax cuts that are scheduled for this year. It is the hypocrisy and contradictions. The people who actually need the help, who should be the priority in our country, are somehow left out on the margins in the cold. Yet these wealthy corporations are doing very well. We know the banks have doubled their profits, for example, but they still get these big corporate tax breaks. I just find it very shameful.

As the member for Elmwood—Transcona pointed out a few moments ago, how can the Conservatives live in good conscience with this kind of massive tax shift that is taking place?

Another point is the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is coming to an end March 31. This is so important in my community. Groups like Healing our Spirit BC Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Society and the Indian Residential School Survivors Society have used this money to help with the healing process. Every day I see the impact of residential schools on survivors and what it means to people in my community. Why is this program coming to an end? Why was it not included in the budget for a further commitment? It is so essential to the respect and dignity of aboriginal people.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why this issue needs to be not just debated but resolved and worked out. The member raises a particular issue about whether we should allow ten percenters to go in individual envelopes. We do that on occasion because they are addressed to individual people in particular ridings. That is a very important element and I believe it is our prerogative to do it. Other parties have chosen to send mass mailings that go on a postal walk. If they see that as effective and they are not abusive, that is fine.

However, to address them to individual residents or voters in a particular area or in a number of areas related to a particular issue, which is what my mailings would be, I do not see anything wrong with that. To me, the issue is how it is being abused, whether it is over the top in the amount of mailings or, more important, the content. These mailings have become very personally abusive, which is what we need to stop.

However. to throw the whole program out would limit members' ability to communicate with Canadians across this country, which would be very unfortunate.

[Business of Supply, March 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as individual members and certainly within our caucuses we still have the ability to say what we agree to sign off on or not. It is not like somebody else using our credit cards.

What really bothers me is that, while I agree that there are problems with the way this program has evolved and now how it is being abused, the principle of it is still very important. Individual members should be able to communicate with people even outside their riding. I do it all the time. I have the ten percenters here. They are entirely legitimate. They are about things that are going on in the House. They are not attacking any individual member.

Presumably, if this is approved and implemented, that will no longer be available. I think members will be losing the rights they have now if this motion is implemented in the way it is written.