Libby Davies

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the spokesperson for the federal New Democrats on Human Resources Development Canada, I am very pleased to speak to this opposition day motion.

New Democrats concur and support the motion because we believe it gets to the issue that we have been debating and it certainly expresses our concern about the gross mismanagement of more than $1 billion annually in grants and contributions by the Department of Human Resources Development, as the motion outlines.

The motion and the issue that we are debating today gets to the core of something that is very important in our democracy and in our system of governance, the issue of ministerial responsibility.

After looking at the information that has come to light over the last several weeks about the internal audit of HRDC, it is clear that this is an issue on the proper management of public funds. This is an issue on the integrity and credibility of the government. Even members of the government have admitted that the practices that have gone on in that department have been astounding and scandalous and, as the minister has said, she herself has called for further information.

What is most disturbing about this issue is that the government itself is also in denial about what is really taking place. Yesterday in question period, and in other debates that have taken place, it has been very interesting to see the government now madly back-pedalling to defend its record and to defend what has happened. It is now switching tactics. It is now saying, as I heard today in the House from government members, that opposition members do not support job creation or job development, and that the government is now the big defender of job development in the country.

The government's second tactic is to attack opposition members on legitimate projects that were approved in various ridings through existing programs, with all the rules in place, with the proper application forms and so on. The government is now in denial and is trying to put up some smoke and mirrors to switch the line of attack.

As New Democrats, we have always supported legitimate and worthy job development programs. Many of us represent ridings in Canada that have high unemployment and high poverty. It was in fact our party that pushed the government to be more forthcoming in its support for job creation and helping the unemployed. Let us be very clear that the issue is not about whether a job development program is good. We are the first to say that job development programs and job creation are very critical in the country.

Canadians are not fooled by the Liberal counteroffensive. They understand that at issue are the findings of the government's own audit which gave very clear evidence about the mismanagement of this fund. The issue is the absolute mismanagement of huge amounts of public funds and the partisan political decision making that is taking place.

Partisan political decision making is the nicest way to say it. To be quite frank, it is also a slush fund. The concern has been that public funds have been used by the Liberal government, breaking its established criteria for the transitional jobs fund and other programs, and basically shovelling the money into its own ridings, which are not in need, when other areas are greatly in need. What is at issue is the management of the fund and how it has been administered in a very political and partisan way.

What disturbs us as New Democrats is the complete lack of accountability, not only in the management of the fund and what has come from it but, now that this has been put on the table and the internal audit has become public, the lack of accountability in the government's response and the lack of accountability from the current minister and the previous minister.

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

In our democracy, our parliamentary system, there is a very honourable tradition that when there has been a lack of accountability and mismanagement, at the end of the day it is the minister who must take responsibility. The minister is accountable and the government is responsible for decisions that have been made. That is why opposition parties have been very clear in telling the current minister and the previous minister that we want accountability.

We have a number of questions about this fund. Looking at the internal audit, we see that it was only a sample audit, not a full detailed audit. In reading the report, we read “there was concern with respect to some political presence in the programs at times. While a certain amount of political involvement is expected in a program involving partners from the various levels of government, there was nevertheless some uneasiness amongst some respondents regarding projects which may have been approved for political reasons rather than based on the strength of the business plan”.

The NDP has a huge amount of concern about the very diplomatic language that is being used in an audit that clearly points to the political decision making and political management that took place to the advantage of the government for their Liberal members and its party.

We have questions as to where those funds ended up. Why did they end up in the minister's riding, the Prime Minister's riding and other Liberal member ridings that clearly did not meet the criteria for the fund? Why did affluent ridings receive a disproportionate amount of these funds? They may have had some unemployment but certainly not as high as other parts of Canada, such as Vancouver East, the area that I represent. Look at the downtown eastside which has the lowest income postal code in Canada. There was one transitional jobs fund program approved in 1997, before I was a member of parliament. It is an area of incredibly high unemployment. Why has that area not received anything? Why has money gone into the member's riding? Why has it not gone into the riding of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, which also has high unemployment?

There are some very serious questions about why a massive amount of public funds have been directed in such a way that they have clearly benefited government members and to the detriment of other needier areas in Canada.

Our critic for EI, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, wrote a letter to the auditor general calling for an immediate special audit of the situation in HRDC. The letter he received back made it clear that the staff of the auditor general, who were conducting an audit into the grants and contributions, believed that there was so much work that needed to be done that the audit would not be completed until the end of July and the report published in October. It is important that the audit be done.

Members of the NDP support the motion because we believe it is very important to get to the bottom of what took place. We know that Canadians support legitimate, transparent and accountable job creation and job development programs.

We in the NDP have always supported those programs. What we do not support is the denial, the lack of accountability, and what is now obviously political management of the fund that is benefiting government members and denying areas most in need. Those are the questions that we want to see fully made transparent.

In conclusion, the motion deals with the issue of accountability and integrity of the government. We think that is very critical. At the end of the day the current minister and the former minister who are both involved in this matter must be responsible and must do the responsible thing in terms of being accountable for what has taken place within the department. We have called for their resignation and will continue to do that. We support the motion.

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say again that the Canadian public is not fooled for a moment that this is some sort of administrative foul up. They see it for what it is, a Liberal slush fund.

In the last few weeks alone Canadians have watched in disbelief as the government stood ready to give millions to hockey millionaires and then millions to bank billionaires instead of students. It has mismanaged billions in programs that should be helping the unemployed, not the Liberal Party.

These misguided priorities of the Liberal government have lost the trust of Canadians. Will the minister resign? That is the right thing to do.

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister is holding up a smokescreen. The issue here is the transitional jobs fund.

We have to say that the Canadian public is not fooled for a moment that this is some sort of administrative foul up. People see it for what it is, a Liberal slush fund.

In the last few weeks alone Canadians have watched in disbelief as a government stood ready to give millions to hockey millionaires and then millions to bank billionaires.

[Human Resources Development, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, rather than take responsibility for the findings of the HRDC audit the minister blames public servants. Our democracy depends on ministers taking responsibility, yet the government refuses to do so.

I remind the minister that the internal audit raised serious concerns about projects that were approved for political reasons and that a regime already exists of public expenditures. The problem is that the government has ignored it.

Given the extent of mismanagement and political interference, the minister simply cannot run away from her own responsibility. Will the minister do the honourable and the democratic thing and resign?

[Housing, December 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing.

Experts tell us that mould in leaky condos is putting people with weak immune systems at risk, including the elderly and young children. Still, the federal government is stonewalling the Barrett commission in its efforts to find a solution to this disaster.

We know that the federal government has provided funding to aboriginal communities faced with the same problem. Why is the minister denying help to people who are at risk in B.C.? Why is the minister doing nothing while children and elderly people are slowly being poisoned by dangerous mould spores in leaky condos?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a subject for another day. What is before us today is the Nisga'a treaty and the process that was conducted there. I think the member has other opportunities to raise the other matters, so I will leave my reply at that because I know the other parties also want to speak to this issue.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, because I know there are other members who want to speak I will answer very briefly. Those comments are very good and obviously concur that minority rights should not be subject to a referendum. I will just leave it at that because I know there are other members who wish to speak.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind comments. We do not always agree with the Liberal members but I think on this issue we see eye to eye. The member chaired the committee in some very difficult hearings. I was only present at some of them, but in other hearings it was very difficult to keep a sense of order and balance with the opposition that came forward. The member did an excellent job in chairing those meetings.

In the committee meetings I attended, I thought the discussions, questions and debates were of an excellent nature. It was the best of what we can expect in terms of parliamentarians doing their work. They listened to the criticisms. There were criticisms as there is on everything. The thoughtful responses and the questions that were provided were very important. Unfortunately, I do not think that was true of the Reform Party which played a very different kind of game. It was executing a political agenda. Fortunately, at the end of the day, it did not managed to get that through and this agreement will be approved and the work of the committee and the members in the House will see that is done. That is a good thing.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will agree with the member for Skeena on one thing: I am not a constitutional expert, just as he is not a constitutional expert. I, like other members, rely on all of the opinions that come before us, from the committee as well as information we receive.

I would be very surprised if there was any legal issue in Canada where we could find a whole bunch of lawyers all agreeing on the same thing. Of course there were other opinions, but we have to look at the overall body of evidence. Surely that is what we do as parliamentarians. We look at the history of our country and come to a rational, reasonable conclusion as to whether or not something is right in terms of the constitution. A vast majority of the members in the House, in fact four of the political parties present, came to that conclusion because it was logical and reasonable.

The Reform Party can of course find someone who will disagree with that, but the overwhelming evidence and opinion in the country is that the Nisga'a agreement is perfectly within the Canadian constitution.

I do not think I ever said that the agreement was flawed. I said it was not perfect. Is anything perfect? Is anything in the House perfect? I do not think so, but it is a pretty good document. When we go through it and think of what it took to get to that point, it is as near to perfect as anything can get when there is that kind of process. It is not a flawed document. I wish the member would not misrepresent what I said.

In terms of the amendments that came forward, we went through that charade for many hours? There has been a lot of debate in the House. It is clear that we make up our own minds about what we think is right or whether or not something is constitutional. I can inform the member that the members of the NDP believe very strongly and firmly that the agreement is within the constitution. We therefore did not see the need for any further amendments. It is abundantly clear as it stands now. I wish the member could understand that.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-9, the Nisga'a final agreement, at third reading. I am proud to say that all members of the federal NDP caucus have supported Bill C-9, and have been very supportive of the process and the debate that has taken place. We have stood firmly in support of the Nisga'a final agreement.

I would like to recognize the work of our aboriginal affairs spokesperson, the member for Yukon. She has played a very positive role at committee with her thoughtful comments, her experience and her deep understanding of aboriginal affairs. I would like to pay special thanks to her for her very dedicated work and participation in the process.

Being from British Columbia, I would like to put on the record that the work of our provincial government on the Nisga'a agreement and on the negotiations which took place also needs to be acknowledged. Two former premiers, Michael Harcourt and Glen Clark, really made this a centrepiece of their agendas. They were personally very committed to seeing a redress of the wrongs that had been done in the past and seeking social and economic justice for the Nisga'a people. Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark, Ian Waddell, the MLA who chaired the B.C. legislative committee that went around the province, as well as Dale Lovick, the current minister of aboriginal affairs for B.C., did a very good job.

It has to be recognized that they took on this job and were faced with a lot of political opportunism, which was seen to be more politically expedient than achieving justice, by the B.C. Liberal Party and the federal Reform Party.

I toyed with the idea of also thanking another former premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, who actually brought the provincial government to the negotiating table in 1991. However, after seeing what he did in the last few years I do not think I could thank him. He basically trashed aboriginal people and the Nisga'a agreement. When the committee was in Vancouver he played a role in the games that were played with his little demonstration. Mr. Vander Zalm brought in the people who hurled obscenities, while he sat there apparently in agreement. He has not played a positive role. He too has sunk to the level of his federal colleagues in the Reform Party in seeing this issue as political opportunism.

Most of all, I would like to thank the Nisga'a people for their patience, not just today with the entire process that has unfolded in the House, but for their patience over the last 20 years and that of the generations before them. If we look back and reflect on the oppression that aboriginal and Nisga'a people suffered and the fact that they had the faith to negotiate an agreement, we know that this is something that is very historic and needs to be acknowledged, particularly in light of what has been a very difficult debate. Horrific statements have been made and thrown at them.

I particularly want to thank Joe Gosnell, the leader of the Nisga'a people, as well as the teams of negotiators. As we were doing our business in the House they kept faith in the process. I am sure there were ups and downs. I am sure there were days when they thought that maybe this would not work and people had to compromise. The fact is that the federal, provincial and Nisga'a negotiators arrived at the agreement which is before us today.

Earlier we heard from Reform members that they believe part of the negotiation process which unfolded was somehow a stacked deal, that it was all done behind closed doors. We have said this many times on the record, and let it be said again: no piece of legislation has had as much scrutiny, examination, debate and public hearing as the Nisga'a agreement in principle as well as the final agreement. We know that for the 20 years that negotiations took place, especially the last few years, advisory committees were involved and public hearings were held by various organizations. For example, the labour movement in British Columbia was involved in the advisory committees. It held consultations with its membership on the treaty to get feedback. We have heard the same thing from the business community, as well as the aboriginal community.

The member for Skeena earlier today said that this was a stacked process which was carried out behind closed doors. I cannot think of anything further from the truth in terms of what really took place. Committee hearings were held in B.C. and in Ottawa.

We have to ask ourselves what this agreement is about. There are many ways to sum it up. I believe this agreement is important and significant. It provides the opportunity for the Nisga'a people to assert themselves as a people, to realize their rights, to undertake their own affairs in economic terms, in social terms, in cultural terms and in terms of equality.

The agreement allows the Nisga'a people to redress the wrongs of the past. It allows the Nisga'a people to develop a stewardship of the land and it allows them to develop resource based management from which all Canadians will learn.

The Nisga'a agreement is within the Canadian constitution. It burns me to hear Reform members spreading information again and again that somehow the agreement is illegal.

Earlier today we again heard the member for Skeena say that the Nisga'a final agreement is legislated segregation. In fact the member went on to equate legislated segregation with apartheid. This is really disgusting. I feel that it displays an astounding arrogance.

The member is suggesting to the Nisga'a people that they have accepted a system of apartheid. He has a lot of arrogance to say that after 20 years of negotiation. This agreement is about equality and social justice. This agreement is within the Canadian constitution. I do not know the response to these comments, but to use these terms, to use the word apartheid, to use the term legislated segregation, is a denial of what has really taken place.

We have to ask ourselves why there has been such a vitriolic response. Even today I was still receiving e-mails full of hatred, viciousness, meanness and racial overtones. I ask myself where this information is coming from. We have to admit, unfortunately, that some of the information comes from the media, which has bought into certain arguments of the Reform Party and its cohort in British Columbia, the B.C. Liberal Party. These messages have been repeated over and over until the people have begun to believe them.

Within the media there has also been some very reasoned, thoughtful and reflective debate which has tried to present the agreement as something that can be examined. Yes, there are some criticisms and there are some issues. This is not a perfect document. We should acknowledge that in the sea of misinformation and a campaign full of misrepresentation and divisiveness some members of the media have tried to ensure that there was a balanced debate.

Today we heard the member for Skeena say that the Reform Party was trying to shed light on the Nisga'a final agreement. What does that mean? I came to the conclusion that Reform members have not shed any light on the Nisga'a final agreement; they have only shed darkness. That is what has been very upsetting about the process which we have gone through. Misinformation has been peddled to the media and the message has gone out again and again that somehow women's rights will not be upheld, that this is a constitutional amendment through the back door, that it will be taxation without representation, that it will be legislated separation, that it will be apartheid, and on and on it goes. That is not shedding light; that is conducting a campaign of fear.

When are Reform members going to stop putting out information that is incorrect, information that is designed to divide people and exploit people's fears about change and about what is taking place? From that point of view, it has been a process that has in some ways brought out the best in terms of public debate and certainly has been a model of what negotiation should be about. However, it has also been a public process, regrettably, that has brought out the worst in some people and the worst in some members of the House.

I have supported this agreement from the beginning. I have to say that the Nass Valley is many hundreds of miles from my riding of Vancouver East. I do not have a direct physical connection with that part of British Columbia. However, I feel that there is a very significant link between what happens in the Nass Valley to the Nisga'a people and what happens in my riding of Vancouver East. My riding also contains a very large population of urban aboriginal people. As we know, something like 60% of aboriginal people live off reserve because they have been oppressed by the system, by the way we have conducted affairs through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

This agreement provides a way to open up a new door. It is a way for government to sit down in equal partnership with aboriginal people and say that it is going to change the way it does business, that it will be on the basis of equality and that it will be on the basis of justice.

I support the Nisga'a final agreement. To me it is a step forward. However, it is not the end of the road. In some ways it is only the beginning. I am not saying that the agreement is a “one size fits all” for all of B.C. or all of Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The process is important. The process that was conducted needs to be repeated in terms of arriving at negotiated settlements; not conflict and litigation through the courts, such as we have seen on our east coast.

Taking that step forward is a sign of hope. It is a sign that federal representatives, provincial representatives and aboriginal representatives can sit down, work out very complex issues and arrive at something with which we can all live. I hope that we continue along that path. I hope too that we recognize that urban aboriginal people are also in great distress and that their issues need to be addressed.

I ask the government to consider that. We had the royal commission on aboriginal affairs. I do not know how much dust the report is collecting, but it is a job that we need to get on with. There are people in my riding who are literally dying on the street. There are people who are suffering from addiction. There are people who are living in substandard housing. There are people who are living far below the poverty line and are struggling to survive each and every day. It takes a lot of courage and survival skills to do that.

It is important that we see this agreement as a step in a process, a step along the road in dealing as well with those other issues that are very important.

When the member for Skeena concluded his remarks he said that the Nisga'a final agreement was not a good deal for the Nisga'a people. I thought about that. I assume that the member believed what he said, that it is not a good deal for the Nisga'a people. We have to be very careful about the kinds of conclusions we come to.

This is not something that was put together over a few days. This is not something that was prepared by the federal government, the department or the provincial government, which then said “Take it or leave it”. This was a process in which an agreement was negotiated. It was the Nisga'a people themselves, their leadership and the members of that community, who finally at the end of the day decided that this was a good deal. Maybe it is not all they had hoped for. They made many compromises, but it is an agreement they can live with and an agreement they can build their lives with. It is an agreement they can pass on to their children and say that they did the right thing, that they are building and creating their future.

The member for Skeena is dead wrong when he says that it is not a good deal for the Nisga'a people. He needs to go into that community and talk to people. He will find out that it was approved by a very large majority. History will show us 10 or 20 years from now that this was the right way to do something, that it was far preferable to conflict in a legal sense and in a political sense.

I am very proud today that I and all of our members in the federal caucus are supporting this agreement. There has been a lot of stuff out in the media. We have all had responses from some people, but at the end of the day it is important to stand up and do the right thing. The right thing here is to support the agreement, say that it is a step forward and that it is the right step forward.