Gary Lunn

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here is absolutely unacceptable. I will focus on what has happened here in the last few minutes.

A number of people in our caucus have been asking to debate this issue, including myself. I came here because I happened to be working late in my office. I had no intention of being here. I have been asking to speak on the Nisga'a agreement and I am slated about 20 speakers down the list. Most of our people have gone home. In order that we can have an opportunity to debate this later, we asked that we debate this late into the evening.

To focus on the Nisga'a agreement itself, I have spent considerable time reading it from cover to cover. I have spoken to some of the top legal authorities in this area. I talked with Mel Smith at length. He is a very respected man in the legal community and I would suggest he is probably one of the authorities on this matter, if not in Canada then in North America.

This agreement at the end of the day will polarize the native and non-native communities. We as a society and the previous governments over the last 30 to 40 years should be absolutely embarrassed by how the first nations people have been treated. Very few non-natives would trade places with native persons on any of the reserves in Canada. We have driven in wedges. We have not made life any better for them. We have taken away their dignity and self-worth.

All of a sudden we have come up with the famous Nisga'a treaty. We have created another fork in the road. We will only drive wedges between the native and non-native communities. We will polarize those people. We will only make matters worse. By no stretch of the imagination are we helping those people.

We have created another level of government. Where I live in British Columbia, in my own backyard, there are five levels of government. We are now creating another whole bureaucracy and system of government.

I suppose the most troubling aspect for me is that there is absolutely no provision in the Nisga'a agreement where a Nisga'a person living on the Nisga'a lands has the absolute right to title to the property they hold. Some people would suggest it is within the power of the band or the minister to decide if they want to have title to the property but they do not have the right to have title to the property.

Many Canadians have used the title to their property as collateral for bank loans, to launch business ventures, fund prospects, a whole host of things, as have I. One takes a lot of pride in one's property and in building up self-worth in what one does. People in the native community cannot do that. They live in horrific conditions.

I met with two chiefs last Saturday in my riding. We went over some of the problems on their reserves with respect to housing and other things on which they have to deal with government. They do not have much faith in the process. They say they are promised one thing by the government and then the door is shut on them.

The problems in the aboriginal community have been culminating over the last 30 to 40 years. They are massive and cannot be solved overnight.

There are some very good parts to the Nisga'a treaty which I fully support, but there are some fatal flaws which will make matters even worse and which will drive wedges between communities. I ask all members to really look at the treaty and the government propaganda and make a decision for themselves because it will not help matters on the reserves.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Petitions, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of 226 constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which brings the total number of signatures to over 15,000 so far.

The petitioners request that parliament support private member's Bill C-237, known as Bill C-304, proposed by the member for Yorkton—Melville concerning the strengthening of property rights.

The protection of property rights is in the Canadian bill of rights. It specifically guarantees that every person has the right to the enjoyment of their property; the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing, paid fairly, timely and impartially fixed compensation; and the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.

[Fisheries, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has just told us that we are not getting any direction from the government on this issue. The Marshall decision is reaching all parts of Canada.

The Mi'kmaq yesterday started fishing for crab out of season off the coast of Newfoundland. They are so worried about their own security that they have gone to the RCMP for protection. The Mi'kmaq had property torched last night in Newfoundland.

What is it going to take? Does there have to be blood on the water? Does somebody have to die before the government is prepared to bring in a fisheries policy based on equality not race?

[William Head Institution, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, convicted wife killer, Patrick Lees, has just begun his sentence at William Head prison in Victoria. Inmates refer to William Head as Club Fed. Why? The inmates reside in condominiums, no steel bars, no locks on the doors, many of the bedrooms have TVs and VCRs and each condo has its own living room, dining room and kitchen. Let us not forget its waterfront location equipped with golf course, fishing pier and much more.

Spousal abuse is a huge problem in our society. Patrick Lees violently murdered his wife, left two young children without a mom and now we see this wife killer sent to Club Fed. There is a place in the system for institutions where inmates must learn to care for themselves. However, prisoners must earn the right to transfer to these institutions.

I am working on a private member's bill where an inmate would not be eligible for this type of institution until they have completed at least 50% of their time. I urge all members to work with me to change the system.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious. There are five official parties in the House. Members of every single have presented petitions on this issue. Almost a third of the members of the House have presented petitions with hundreds of thousands of signatures. The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough less than one year ago, last June, presented a petition in the House regarding this definition. To suggest that it is not an important issue is an insult to every single person, every single Canadian who signed those petitions and all other Canadians who believe in this issue.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Justice introduced an amendment. It is unfortunate that she does not understand the standing orders of parliament. There is a standing order that says that all motions before this House can only be for the purview or the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. That goes without saying. That is why it was not in our original motion. In the House we can only debate anything within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. That is an automatic and a given. It did not need to be stated.

With regard to the hon. member's comments on discrimination, there is no discrimination. We are only reaffirming the definition of marriage. Members can talk about all of the other issues. I will state on the record that I know and I have worked with many people who are homosexual. I have no problem with that. That is not the issue. It is not an issue about sexuality. This is an issue strictly about the definition of marriage. I personally do not discriminate against any of those people. I am quite happy to state that on the record.

That is where the members of the House want to take this discussion which is very unfortunate, as opposed to talking about what it really and truly is and that is reaffirming that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We need to send that message out in light of recent court decisions and court interpretations. They are not getting a clear direction from parliament and it is high time they did. We do it on many other issues so that the courts know exactly where the Parliament of Canada stands. The Canadian people have elected us to make those statements in the House.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a member on the other side say my nose is growing. It is ridiculous to even suggest that.

There is one agenda. I say that sincerely, with all my heart. In all my discussions with my colleagues in the Reform Party behind closed doors in our caucus, the one topic that has come up is the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. That is it and nothing else.

If the members cannot accept that, if they cannot accept the importance of that and what it means to Canadians, I believe they have missed something. It is important. As a member of the bar, as a lawyer, I think it is truly important that the House of Commons sends very clear messages to all courts. They are looking for that. Often we see our courts struggle with decisions because parliamentarians have not had the courage to make a statement; they do not want to make a statement. The courts say this is an issue on which parliament should rule.

This is an opportunity for us. I anticipate that virtually every member of the House will support the motion for the right reasons. It states just what it does. It is a truly important motion, one that I am proud to speak on, one I am proud to represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands on, that the Parliament of Canada believes that the institution of marriage should be preserved, that it should be between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We should be prepared to make that statement without minimizing it, without saying that it is not important or without saying we should not be talking about it.

I truly believe it is an important issue. It is worthy of the time of the House to push it to a vote to make sure that all officers of the courts and all the judges in the country know exactly where we stand on the issue.

It is high time that we start sending messages to the courts on many other issues such as child pornography and others that we often do not deal with. It is time that we take a stand so that the courts understand and make the definition so painfully simple that nobody can misinterpret it.

In conclusion, I will read the motion one more time so that everyone remembers what we are talking about, because some people have not been able to read it:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

This is what the debate is about and nothing else. Hopefully members have got it now.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on this very important issue. After listening to the last few speakers, I want to read something:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

I do not know how much clearer we can get than that. We talk about hot button politics. With some of the comments being made by the other parties in the House, I would be ashamed to be associated with those parties.

We are here to talk about one issue and only one issue. That is the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. I lay awake last night for a long time thinking about this issue. I truly want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for bringing forward the motion. He has been a very strong person in support of this message and has had the courage to bring this very important issue before parliament.

Often in the House we get caught up, and rightly so, in raising our standard of living, taxes, health care and the war in Kosovo. We talk about those subjects hour in and hour out and sometimes it is my belief that we lose focus on the bigger, very important issues. This is one of them.

I have been in the courts as a member of the bar. Judges are always shaping the law of the land. The law of the land has been by no means static. It is very dynamic. It changes over time. When judges make their rulings it is very important to them that they look at where the legislatures and the parliament of the country stand on various issues.

Quite often lawyers presenting cases will refer to Hansard . We have seen in recent court decisions where the courts interpret a variety of issues. In British Columbia this year a judge ruled that possession of child pornography is not a crime in Canada. Of course the country was immediately outraged.

This is a case where parliament has an opportunity to send a very clear message, and it is painfully simple, on where the Parliament of Canada stands on the definition of marriage. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker of Canada. We know the definition of marriage in the books right now and we have an opportunity to reaffirm that, which I think is very important.

Many members have suggested that there is a much deeper meaning to what we are trying to do. I want to talk about that deeper meaning. I want to go deep inside this definition and this motion to what we are trying to do.

After spending hours thinking about this and looking at it from all angles, the deepest meaning I can come up with is that we are reaffirming the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. Nothing else. That is it. It is painfully simple. It cannot be confused with any other issues.

I have sat in parliament for the past few years. I appreciate that somebody would bring forward this motion because it is what really matters to Canadians. Actually I am offended when I hear members of other parties trying to minimize its importance. They have asked what the Reform Party is doing. They have said that this law is on the books and have asked why it is wasting time and why it has come forward with this meaningless motion.

Some 85 members of the House of Commons, or almost one-third, have tabled petitions on the definition of marriage containing hundreds of thousands of signatures. I cannot recall another issue in which so many Canadian people have believed so strongly that they wanted to send a message and table that many petitions. I have seen members table petitions that are inches high.

I am truly offended by members who suggest that this is not an important issue to Canadians; that it does not deserve time in parliament; that it does not deserve members of the House taking a stand and sending an unequivocal, clear message to all of Canada, to all the courts and to all members of the bar that this is where the House of Commons stands on this issue. There is nothing deeper than that.

We have heard the Minister of Justice say that she will support it, but to suggest that this is not an important issue is to have missed the mark. I emphasize the number of signatures. How much plainer and simpler can we get than this definition? There are no other issues. There is no hidden agenda, absolutely nothing.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is not too sure where he stands. On the one hand he is suggesting that members of the Reform Party are trying to create panic or are attacking. He even used the word “misrepresentation”. The member suggests that we have ulterior motives, that this is a divisive issue. Yet on the other hand he said that this is a motion of importance.

The member cannot have it both ways. He is talking about jobs and health care. Those are issues which we talk about every day. No one is suggesting that they are not important issues.

The member has to decide which way it is. I know that he and I both agree on the definition of marriage, without question. The member said that this motion will not fortify the institution of marriage. Is the member telling us that this House of Commons has no influence on our courts? We are both members of the bar. We know that judges look to the House of Commons, to the comments which were made and how we voted. Will this not send a message to the courts telling them exactly where the Parliament of Canada stands?

Which way is it? Is it an issue of importance or does the member not believe it is? Nobody in this party is suggesting a panic attack. Those are words coming out of the hon. member's mouth, not from the Reform Party of Canada.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice for supporting the motion. I also agree with her comment about marriage being an important institution.

She posed a couple of questions in her speech. She asked why we are here today and then put out the suggestion that it is a redundant motion.

I went to sleep last night thinking about the motion. Often in the House we get so caught up in the day to day activities and with what is in the press that we sometimes lose focus on the truly important issues. Sometimes things create a life of their own. As we have seen many times through the courts on various issues, completely separate and apart from this, they do create a life of their own and the courts are left to interpret.

Does the Minister of Justice agree that parliament is the supreme lawmaker of the country? Is it not very important for the courts to get a very clear, simple message from the Parliament of Canada on where we stand on this issue? In the past in many cases we have not done that and we have left it up to the courts to shape the law of the country. The Minister of Justice and I both recognize that happens all the time.

Does the Minister of Justice not think that this will send a very clear signal to the courts on where the Parliament of Canada stands on the issue?