Libby Davies

[Human Resources Development, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, months after we first heard of the scandalous situation at HRDC, Canadians still do not have answers. The only transparent aspect of the whole mess is the government's mishandling of it.

That is why today the four opposition parties put out their own report calling for an independent public inquiry. Apparently the minister feels it is just ranting and raving. I can assure the minister that upholding the public interest is not ranting and raving. It is called getting to the truth. Why is the minister so afraid to hold a public inquiry to get at the truth?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer. We in the NDP believe in the self-determination of aboriginal people. We believe that aboriginal communities, first nations, have the ability and the capacity to put in place any procedures they want in terms of an ombudsperson.

For the Reform Party to impose that, we see through its agenda. When we look at the debates that have taken place in the House over aboriginal rights, the Reform Party has opposed every one. Then all of a sudden it comes up with the idea of an ombudsperson. Methinks it doth protest too much. Its agenda is very clear, but from our point of view it is something that should come from within the aboriginal community.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I did use the word hateful a number of times. I stand by it because I believe the arguments from opposition members were hateful of other people in society. For example, when they attack people who are in common law relationships I wonder where is their morality in terms of imposing their views on other Canadians.

I find that incredibly divisive. I find it incredibly biased and I find it hateful. Basically it is singling out people for the fact that they do not uphold the member's particular view of marriage even though people in same sex relationships may have all the attributes and the characteristics of what the member would characterize as a traditional marriage. I think that is hateful.

In terms of the other question I say very clearly that I did not support the preamble, the definition of marriage contained in the bill. Nor do I think it should be applied to the other statutes, simply because the bill is about benefits and obligations. That was the original intent of the bill. In fact it is a great shame that the government caved in at the last minute and put in that preamble an attempt to win the support of some of its backbenchers, which obviously did not work.

The original intent of the bill in terms of benefits and obligations was correct. To put in that preamble, and to put it into every other statute where there is not a definition of marriage currently, incites an inflammatory kind of environment which allows opposition members, the Canadian Alliance, the former Reform Party, to carry out its agenda of dividing people. I simply do not agree with that.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think I used the term the former Reform Party. The term alliance is an interesting one because alliance to me implies that there is a partnership taking place, and I have been curious to see who is really banging down the door to form this alliance.

We have the Canadian Alliance, the former Reform Party, the opposition members, but the point is what they say in the House and the way they have taken on this bill. They have held up a smokescreen, trying to fool people or give people the illusion that it is about special rights. That is completely unfounded and nothing could be further from the truth.

I have been particularly offended by the remarks of members opposite that the bill will hurt children and families. In fact, just yesterday a member of the opposition in his debate said “I suggest that this government has given in once again to the tyranny of the minority. We cannot legislate equality any more than we can legislate morality”.

We do legislate equality. That is what the charter of rights and freedoms is about. That is what our constitution is about. That is what the Canadian Human Rights Act is about. We do legislate equality and every member of the House should stand to defend the right of equality.

Those members are trying to legislate morality in the House. Let us be very clear about that. When they do so we have to understand that not only are they attacking gay and lesbians or same sex couples who are in a common law relationship, they have gone further than that. They are now attacking the rights of people, whether they be gay, straight or whatever, in common law relationships.

Yesterday some of the amendments that we dealt with were specific amendments to remove the term common law relationship from the Old Age Security Act and the Income Tax Act. That would take us back to the dark ages. I thought we had entered the new millennium. The members of the opposition party, the former Reform Party, are stuck in an age where their moralistic views, their narrow, hateful views of what Canadians are about, are not shared by the majority of Canadians.

I ask members of the opposition who have opposed this bill why they consider it to be such a threat to heterosexual families. They seem to think that Bill C-23 will somehow undermine their own families or what they perceive to be traditional marriages. Why is there only one definition of marriage in their minds?

I have heard Reform members say that the bill will diminish marital relationships. I have to question and challenge why they are so threatened, so weak and so hateful that in order to impose their moralistic view they are determined to deny equality to other Canadians who happen to be in same sex relationships. Why are they willing to do that?

One of the unfortunate consequences of their argument is that by voicing their biases and their prejudices against people they actually give permission to other people in society to stir up hatred and division. We saw that during the Nisga'a debate when Reformers made remarks that were then taken up by racists and by people who harbour huge feelings of homophobia. This is what the former Reform Party members are allowing to happen by their very hurtful comments. They make comments which divide our society.

We in the New Democratic Party are absolutely appalled by that stand. We think it is outrageous. We have the courage to stand in this place to defend equality and to stand in support and in defence of same sex relationships. All people should be given the same treatment under the law.

At the end of the day this bill is important because we have seen incredibly lengthy court battles. I know of couples who have dealt with the system, who have been forced to go through humiliation and discrimination because of the law and have had to pay money to lawyers. We have seen some of the very expensive legal challenges that have taken place. It is important for us as legislators to say that we have a clear ruling. This is about equality. It is about doing the right thing. We should stop this very expensive process of forcing people to go through litigation. We should be changing these laws. That is another reason Bill C-23 should be adopted unanimously by the House tonight, and it will be supported by New Democrats.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.

I thank my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, who has been a champion of same sex equality, not only in the House of Commons and parliament, but also in the broader society. I recognize the incredible work that the member for Burnaby—Douglas has done, not just in the New Democratic Party, but in the political life of the country, in standing to ensure that gays and lesbians are not discriminated against and in defending equality for all the people of the country.

As we are debating the final reading of Bill C-23, I am proud to say that members of the New Democratic Party fully support the bill. Our party has had a long history of standing for equality and defending minority rights, and we will continue to do that.

I would like to speak to what the bill is about. As with other issues before the House, there has been much misinformation and propaganda put forward and I think it is important to state the case of what this bill is about. In my mind, and for anyone who cares to look at the bill, it is about equality. It is about dealing with the legal issues that resulted from the May 1999 supreme court ruling in M. v H., which made it quite clear, legitimately, that governments cannot limit benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law relationships. That ruling made it very clear that denying equal treatment before the law to same sex common law partners is contrary not only to the charter of rights and freedoms, but also the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since that historic case in the supreme court a number of provinces and other jurisdictions have gone back to examine their statutes to see whether discrimination exists. For example, since 1997 the province that I am from, British Columbia, has amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to ensure that there is no discrimination against same sex benefits.

In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations. In Ontario we have seen 67 statutes amended. As well, in a large majority of Canadian cities, in private sector companies, in municipalities, in hospitals, in libraries and in various social service institutions across Canada we have seen the same kind of change begin to take effect.

I have to say, and I think many people in this country would say, that this is long overdue. It has been a long, costly and arduous role for many people in this country who have faced discrimination before the law, but also in terms of discrimination in public attitude, in government legislation and in services. Today we should take pride in saying that Bill C-23 is the right thing to do to uphold equality in our country.

Having said that, I want to say that it is also with a note of dismay that we have to challenge the misinformation that has been put forward by the former Reform Party. In fact, listening to the debate in the House over the last few weeks, I have really been quite appalled at the level of debate, the cheap shots that have been taken and the hateful comments that have been made by members of the former Reform Party.

Former Reform Party members have done the same thing they did with the Nisga'a final agreement. They have tried to portray this as a debate not about equality, but somehow that parliament will be conferring special rights on a special interest group. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about special rights. It is not about special rules or considerations. This is about ending discrimination toward gay and lesbian couples in common law relationships and saying that the law must apply equally and fairly to all Canadians.

I have also heard former Reform members say that the legislation will hurt children and that children will suffer. I have also heard—

[Housing, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today the moderator of the United Church is blasting the mindless ideology of a market driven society that abandons the poor. Tomorrow Toronto housing activists are holding yet another vigil to witness the tragedy of 19 deaths from homelessness this winter.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for housing why his government forfeited social housing and abandoned this most basic human right. Is it because the marketplace is the higher calling this government is beholden to?

[National Poetry Month, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of national poetry month I would like to read an excerpt from “A Thousand Crosses in Oppenheimer Park” by Bud Osborn.

when eagles circle oppenheimer park who see them feel awe feel joy feel hope soar in our hearts the eagles are symbols for the courage in our spirits for the fierce and piercing vision for justice in our souls the eagles bestow a blessing on our lives but with these thousand crosses planted in oppenheimer park today who really see them feel sorrow feel loss feel rage our hearts shed bitter tears these thousand crosses are symbols of the social apartheid in our culture the segregation of those who deserve to live and those who are abandoned to die these thousand crosses represent the overdose deaths of drug addicts these thousand crosses silently announce a social curse on the lives of the poorest of the poor on the downtown eastside these thousand crosses announce an assault on our community these thousand crosses announce a deprivation of possibility for those of us who mourn here the mothers and fathers—

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today after my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, a former member of the CCF, to speak in support of the motion that is before us.

I want to begin my remarks by saying that I just came from the human resources development committee where we had the President of the Treasury Board appearing before the committee. It is quite an interesting debate that is taking place to really examine the relationship of a department like HRDC with the treasury board and to try to figure out what rules are in place to ensure that there is financial accountability for the expenditure of public funds.

Just a couple of weeks ago we had the auditor general before that committee. He said:

I cannot help but express frustration with the way the government manages grants and contributions in general. Our audit work in various departments back to 1977 has identified persistent shortcomings, from problems with compliance with program authorities to weaknesses in program design, instances of poor controls, and insufficient measurements and reporting of performance. We continue to find many of the same kinds of problems each time we audit grant and contribution programs. The recent internal audit at HRDC again pointed to the same types of problems.

I think that is a real condemnation of the way the government has managed grants and contributions and the expenditure of public funds. Although this motion before us today is fairly narrow in scope, I think it does afford us the opportunity to examine in a public realm, and to bring to public light, the inner workings of government.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said earlier, obviously the issue that we are grappling with is not just an issue of financial administration and financial management. It is also an issue of political management of grants and contributions in HRDC.

From the very beginning of this scandal, the members of the New Democratic Party have been very clear in calling for a full disclosure of information. In fact, the motion before us today is within that realm of trying to ensure that there are procedures in place to make sure that audits are tabled in a timely manner and that access to information is provided in a timely manner.

Looking back over the debate that has unfolded in the last more than two months, it is amazing that in the beginning weeks members of the opposition had a hell of a time even getting information about moneys that were spent in the transitional jobs funds, the Canada jobs funds and other human resource development programs. Member after member got up in question period and in committees, and in the media through access to information, tried to pull that information out from the government in order to get a sense of what the picture was really about.

I remember the government House leader, with his huge binder, slipping the pages to the Prime Minister so that information could be doled out little bit by little bit, as it suited the government. I thought to myself, what a travesty of the way to do public business.

The issue of public disclosure, of transparency in government workings, of financial administration as an important part of a democratic institution, parliament, is of great concern to Canadians. Maybe a couple of years ago somebody would have looked at a motion like this and asked why we would want to debate it. But I think this motion and what is underneath it, the substance of what lies beneath it in terms of the very political management of these huge funds, is something that more and more Canadians are very concerned about.

I also want to say that the NDP from the very beginning has not only called for disclosure and a full audit by the auditor general, it has also made it very clear that from its point of view it supports public expenditure of funds on job development and job creation programs. It thinks that it is a wise and credible way in which to expend public money but the problem is it must be done in a way where the rules are clear, consistent and where there is transparency so that Canadians can be assured, no matter what region or city they are in, that the rules operating in their region are the same as the rules in another region, with the understanding of course that there are differences across the country.

One of the things that has really concerned me, representing a riding that has high unemployment and very high poverty levels, is that Vancouver East, my riding, did not qualify for transitional jobs funds apparently until we found out that these pockets of unemployment existed.

It has really been a very disturbing exercise to unravel and to deconstruct what has happened with the grants and contributions program and to learn that not only were audits and recommendations from the auditor general's office ignored for more than 20 years, but that the rules that have been put in place seem to be made up as the government goes along. They seem to be made up in a way that is convenient to suit the political fashion of the day, to dole out some money here or there and, interestingly enough, to very profitable large businesses.

Job development and job creation should be community based. We have the reality that of the 100 most profitable businesses in Canada, 49 of them received some kind of grant or contribution from the federal government. I think most Canadians would kind of scratch their head and ask, what is the priority there? I could think of many other instances where those funds could be better expended to create long term sustainable jobs in a local community.

The other matter that I want to mention briefly is, as we have now sort of uncovered what is going on in HRDC and recognize the magnitude of the problem and the scandal that has unfolded, what has not come out very strongly is the fact that the decisions by the Liberal government to cut back the civil service has really had an impact as well.

Just a couple of days ago I had a visit from the Financial Administration Offices Association that worked for the federal government. It pointed out some quite alarming facts. These are folks who provide financial administration. They are the folks who within the system should be in a place to figure out when things are going wrong and to provide the necessary financial controls. What I found out from the association is that it has suffered major cutbacks of about one-third which has seriously impaired its ability to work effectively within various departments to make sure that the necessary financial controls are in place. That is just one small instance of how this picture has gone so terribly wrong.

I want to say in closing that the NDP supports the opposition motion that is before us today, but clearly we do not believe that it goes far enough. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We want to see timely audits that are made public. We want to make sure that MPs and parties are not running around in circles trying to get access to information. We do not want to see 10,000 pages of material dumped on members that it is very difficult to make any kind of sense of. This is about democratic disclosure. It is about ensuring that there is transparency in government operations.

More than that, it is also about political accountability of the minister and of the government to ensure that these public funds are expended in a way that is fair, open and consistent. The evidence shows us that this clearly has not been the case.

We will support the motion and we will also continue to bring forward other issues and questions about the management of funds in HRDC.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to figure out what the alliance is. An alliance implies that one is in alliance with other partners. I do not exactly see people beating down the doors. It seems like it is the same old Reform Party.

In the debate earlier today, the member for Yorkton—Melville spoke about Bill C-23 implementing special rights. He said that children will suffer. I find this to be quite outrageous and insulting.

I would like to know from the Reform Party, the new alliance, how it constitutes this as special rights. It seems to me that in the debate on Bill C-23 it is using exactly the same tactic it used when we debated the Nisga'a final agreement. It used this tactic fairly successfully in trying to divide Canadians, in trying to say that there are different statuses, different rights and special interests.

We have to stand today and say that the intent of this bill and why it was introduced was to live up to the charter of rights, to live up to the name, the spirit and the implementation of equality for gays and lesbians. That is something every single member of the House should uphold and be proud to uphold.

To characterize this now as special rights and that somehow children are going to suffer, the member owes the House an explanation as to how children are going to suffer as a result of this bill. That is what he said. Children are certainly suffering because of poverty. They are certainly suffering as a result of neglect. But they are not suffering as a result of what the provisions are in Bill C-23, or by living in families or communities where there are same sex couples.

I want to call the member on this issue. That kind of debate is inflammatory and divisive. It portrays a very narrow, intolerant, and I would say a very hateful viewpoint which is aimed and targeted at minority members of our community. What the Reform Party members are really saying about Bill C-23, just as they said about the Nisga'a treaty, is that anyone who does not agree with its narrow and very traditional view of the family is not to be afforded equality.

The member for Yorkton—Melville went even further in his attack. He went on to attack common law relationships. He talked about people shacking up and that common law relationships were generally characterized by domestic violence and children were abused and neglected. I could not believe I was hearing that kind of assault on common law relationships in the House of Commons.

I was involved with my husband for almost 25 years in a common law relationship before he died in 1997. I am insulted by what that member had to say against all Canadians who for whatever reason or choice decide to be in a common law relationship.

The remarks today were offensive to gay, lesbian and straight couples. They portray the arrogance of that party and its members in imposing their moralistic, bigoted and, I would say, hateful views on other members of Canadian society. We should reject that. If we believe in the charter of rights and equality, then we should say that is something we are going to implement in terms of pensions and benefits.

In terms of the amendments that are before us and what happened at the committee, I question why members of the government are caving in on this. We can see what is happening. We have heard other members in the official opposition say that they agree with the amendment of the definition. This is something that has never been defined in other statutes. In fact, not only are they calling for this definition of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but they are now calling on the government to amend all statutes, all legislation, to that effect.

This reflects the real intent of the official opposition and what it is trying to do to take the debate away from the provision of equality. Those members are trying to move the debate to a ground of morals which they want to use in order to create division in our society.

I am proud to say that our party has always stood for equality. We have always respected, accepted, encouraged and supported diversity in our society. What we may see as a traditional family may be something different to someone else. What we may see as a conjugal relationship and what we may see as a loving, caring relationship of two people, are different things for different people. This party has respect for and commitment to that. I abhor the fact that the government has apparently started to backslide and is undermining its own bill in an attempt to play the political game the Reform Party is putting forward.

Our amendments are put forward to put this bill back to where it should be and that is on the modernization of benefits and not a debate about marriage, not an exclusion of people, not a definition that says one is legal and another is not. This debate should be about equality. I urge government members to reflect upon what the original intent was and not to cave in and cater to the very narrow interests that are being put forward.

It is very clear that in talking to the Canadian people, we would find that most Canadians accept, understand and want to see those equality provisions extended. They do not agree with the kind of bigoted, narrow-minded definition that has come forward from the Reform Party.

I hope the amendments will be considered and supported in terms of the original intent of Bill C-23.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of the amendments put forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.

I am proud to be from the riding of Vancouver East. I have had a lot of phone calls, e-mails and correspondence from gays, lesbians and straight people, constituents who have been in favour of Bill C-23. They saw it as a positive, progressive and long overdue move by the government to recognize equality for gays and lesbians in terms of modernization of benefits and so on.

Given the events of the last week or so, it has been a shock to see how the government at the 11th hour has begun to renege on the original intent and spirit of Bill C-23. It is caving in to what I think is clearly a minority viewpoint coming from the Reform Party and some people in the community. It is very disappointing to see the government cave in at the very end and in effect undermine the fundamental value and point of Bill C-23.

I wholeheartedly support the amendments that were put forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Those amendments are our attempt to put this bill back on track and to say to the government that there was a clear intent with Bill C-23. That is what we should keep in mind here. We should not be sidelined and sidetracked by all of these other political debates.

In listening to the debate today I have been truly dismayed and shocked by some of the comments that have been made by members of the Reform Party.