SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Sep/18/23 3:51:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canada's New Democrats to honour the life and legacy of the Hon. Monique Bégin, who sadly passed earlier this month. Madam Bégin was a feminist trailblazer, a passionate advocate for social justice and a tireless champion for public health care. In 1966, she served as vice-president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec and was a signatory of the organization's founding charter. She was then appointed secretary-general of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, where she carried out groundbreaking work to advance women's equality. In 1972, Madam Bégin, along with Albanie Morin and Jeanne Sauvé, became one of the first women from Quebec elected to the House of Commons. She was appointed to cabinet in 1976, where she served as minister for national revenue and then as minister for national health and welfare. In Parliament, she advanced a number of critical measures to support vulnerable Canadians, including the child tax credit and the guaranteed income supplement, but perhaps her greatest legislative achievement was securing unanimous support for the Canada Health Act in 1984, something extremely near and dear to New Democrats' hearts in this country. At the time, Madam Bégin warned the chamber, “An erosion of medicare is taking place” and called on all parliamentarians at that time “to consolidate medicare by fixing the loopholes and bad habits that have developed to make it work for years to come.” Unfortunately, today Canadians are once again witnessing an erosion of this cherished national institution, as she warned so presciently of those decades ago. Decades of underfunding, creeping privatization, inadequate enforcement of the Canada Health Act and the continued exploitation of legal loopholes represent profound and ongoing threats to our universal public system. Madam Bégin was known as a fierce defender of public delivery, and she never hesitated to wield a big stick at any province that threatened that principle. Let us learn from Monique Bégin's inspiring example by turning these words of tribute today into action for tomorrow. Let us honour her legacy by recommitting ourselves to protecting, strengthening and expanding public health care for all Canadians. New Democrats cherish her vision. We will carry it on today in the House and for decades to come.

406 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Sep/18/23 5:10:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Madam Speaker, I think the average person on the street would probably agree with the principle that someone who has repeat offended at some point would require a reverse onus for bail. However, I am thinking of one of the cornerstones of the rule of law system in our country, which is the presumption of innocence. We have a right to walk the streets and have liberty, and if the state charges us with a crime, we have a right to be presumed innocent and not to be deprived of our liberty. I am wondering how my hon. colleague squares that notion with the concept of reverse onus, where somebody who is accused would have to justify why they would retain liberty instead of being incarcerated pending a trial and pending conviction of the crime, which has not yet occurred. Does he have any concerns in that regard?

148 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Sep/18/23 6:09:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was pretty wide-ranging and touched on a number of things. It contributed to the debate, but in some cases it did not. We are talking about bail conditions and how we deal with people who commit crimes on bail. The member raised the tragedy outside the Starbucks in Vancouver, where Mr. Schmidt was knifed to death. However, that was by a person who was not out on bail, so I am not sure what that has to do with the legislation that is under consideration. The current bail law in this country is that bail can be denied when an accused's criminal record is taken into account, particularly if they have failed to comply with past bail conditions or court orders. It is the law now that bail can be denied by a judge if someone has failed to comply with bail conditions in the past or if they have a repeat criminal record. Could the member explain to us why she thinks the current law is not sufficient to keep those people in jail pending their trial, when that is the law right now?

194 words