Libby Davies

[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.

[Recognition Of Crimes Against Humanity Act, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today thousands of demonstrators were tear-gassed and pepper sprayed in Seattle in protest of the millennium round of the WTO and in defence of democracy. Thousands of students, seniors, trade unionists and concerned citizens travelled to Seattle from Vancouver to join the tens of thousands of people there to make it crystal clear to Canadian government representatives, including the Minister for International Trade, that Canada is not for sale.

The mobilization and opposition to globalization is widespread and more and more people are connecting and understanding how threatening the WTO agenda is to our democracy and public services.

If the Liberal government believes it can get away with quietly handing over control of our resources and services to the WTO it is absolutely mistaken. It is shameful that the Canadian government has supported and promoted the very narrow and anti-democratic definition of trade liberalization as envisaged in the WTO.

Whether it is the auto pact that protected Canadian jobs, farm income support or culture, Canada has already suffered from WTO rulings. We are threatened now with challenges to our drug patent laws that will force drug prices to go up even higher than they have been under NAFTA.

What is even scarier is that for the first time the federal government is looking to include health care and education as priorities for export. Any changes in the General Agreement on Trade in Services by reverting to a top down agreement will be devastating to our education and health care and allow them to become commodities for trade and subject to control by foreign corporations.

I cannot believe the Liberals are allowing this to happen. Who is serving whom? Surely the role of our federal government is to serve the public interest, meet the needs of Canadians and protect our valuable resources and services. All the evidence shows us that the Liberal government has gone on a wild binge of serving not ordinary Canadians but the corporate elites and the global market ideology.

Canadians who are at the battle in Seattle today and many more people who could not be there are saying to the government, “Stop the WTO sell out. We are opposed to the global hegemony. We are opposed to corporate rule. We are opposed to Canadian resources and public services being put on the WTO chopping block”.

We need rules that protect our services and rules that make multinational corporations operate within the confines of the public interest. Why will the government not make that its goal? It is what Canadians want.

[Trade, November 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the federal government continues the sellout of Canada in the millennium round of the WTO in Seattle, thousands of Canadians are hitting the streets to say no: no to a market ideology and trade liberalization that would give more power to corporate elites; no to the commodification of health care, education, culture and human services; no to the multinational corporations which want to trade, exploit and profit from public services; and no to the Liberal government's secretive agenda that undermines democracy.

The auto pact, farm income support, magazines and the fisheries have already fallen at the WTO altar. Canadians are not going to stand by and see more of their precious resources—now, for the first time, education and health care—thrown to the WTO to control.

The NDP opposed the creation of the WTO in 1994 because, like the NAFTA, it elevates the rights of multinational corporations at the expense of public needs. We say to the Liberal government today “Stand for Canadians, stand for our public services and defeat the WTO agenda”.

[Request For Emergency Debate, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very brief. I rise on a very solemn and serious matter. As you know I wrote you a letter to seek leave to have an emergency debate under Standing Order 52(2).

Today is the 10th anniversary of the unanimous resolution that was passed in the House of Commons to seek to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Maybe the Speaker himself was present in the House that day. It was an honourable resolution that was made 10 years ago. Regrettably, today we are in a situation where not only have we not made any progress in this regard, a goal that was put together by all members of the House, but the situation has become much worse, to the extent that there are now 1.4 million children living in poverty.

We must not forget that those children are not alone. They are attached to families. Tens of thousands of families are living in poverty in this country.

For the 1.4 million children living in poverty this is definitely an emergency. For the 90% of single mothers of young children, it is an emergency. For the 300,000 children who make use of food banks, it is definitely an emergency.

Over the past two days, citizens right across the country have been holding vigils and meetings to address the emergency. Today, as the leader of the NDP pointed out, bells were ringing across the country at noon to draw to the attention of all members of the House the fact that the resolution has not met its goal.

I believe that members of parliament need an opportunity to report on the scale of the problem in our own communities, to question the government on why this emergency now exists and to set out some recommendations about what actions need to be taken to help poor kids in the country.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that you grant the emergency debate because this did come from parliament and from all of us working together. Here we are 10 years later in a very sorry state of affairs. I think this is something that really necessitates an emergency debate. I would ask you to consider that.

[Child Poverty, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government's response is pathetic. The government wants us to believe that empty promises will reduce poverty. The government wants us to believe that the provinces are to blame for broken Liberal promises.

We teach our children to honour commitment. I ask the Prime Minister, no vagueness and no blaming everyone else, will he honour his promise for child care, yes or no?

[Child Poverty, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that she welcomes the report card on child poverty, but will the government acknowledge that it is a devastating indictment against federal government inaction? No, I correct myself. It is an indictment against federal government action that has actually made things worse over the last decade.

The Prime Minister knows that a universal program of affordable child care is critical to fight poverty. Before we reach the year 2000 will he at least make a commitment to honour his promises for a national child care program?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, today in the House when I asked the government what action it would take to face up to the horrible reality that child poverty has increased by 50% since 1989 as a result of the finance minister's policy, the only reply of the Minister of Human Resources Development was that I should read the throne speech as evidence of the government's attention. I have read it many times, searched high and low, and it tells us nothing.

I would urge the minister to read the recently released National Council on Welfare report that slams her government for its inaction on poverty. The National Council on Welfare is actually appointed by the government and has produced excellent reports that document over and over the plight of poor children and their parents.

Just think of it. Since the unanimous resolution was passed in the House of Commons in 1989, there are now half a million more poor children in Canada. On every front, government policy is the reason for the growing gap between poor and wealthy Canadians. Whether it is the elimination of the Canada assistance plan in 1996, the elimination of social housing in 1993, or the broken Liberal promises on 150,000 child care spaces, or the cruel and vicious cuts to unemployment insurance that have literally driven women into poverty, the government's record is awful, just awful.

I have spoken many times in parliament about poverty. I have met with many social justice and anti-poverty and housing groups across the country. In fact I travelled across Canada in February and met firsthand with front line housing activists. I met with homeless people and people who are one paycheque away from destitution. I can say they are fed up with the government's pathetic excuses and so am I. I feel quite ill when I hear the typical message box response, the sweet words of concern, while the poor are being hammered and pepper sprayed.

So again I ask the government, when will the Liberal government stop poor bashing? When will we see a real commitment to the 1% solution for a national housing plan? When will the government use its massive resources for people, for a national child care program, for fair taxation, for housing and for healthy kids?

I implore the government, no more professed concerns. We need real substantive action to end the war on the poor. I can already hear the Liberal message box response.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I believe that it would be a grievous error to submit this treaty and the issue of minority rights to a referendum. Who would vote? The Reform Party is saying that it would be everyone in B.C. Some people may argue that all Canadians should vote.

I believe that democratic expression and the substance of that is what is valued. There are times for referendums. There are times when a referendum can be appropriate. Under our constitution our governments have the mandate and the responsibility to negotiate treaties. That is what was done in this case. That is what has been arrived at and that is what must be approved.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, that the Reform Party wants to liberate aboriginal people. I guess talk is pretty cheap.

That is what we just heard from the Reform Party, that it wants to liberate aboriginal people. Every single action I have seen in the House, every single example that is used by the Reform Party when it comes to aboriginal people, has been negative, has been allegations of what it perceives to be corruption, and has been divisive. If that is what the Reform Party calls liberation, I do not want any part of its liberation.

I do not know about the 1969 white paper. I was 16 years old at the time and I do not know what it said.

But I do know that the Nisga'a treaty was negotiated by the Nisga'a people. If we are talking about liberation, then we have to understand that the representatives of those people sat down at the table, negotiated in good faith and came up with an agreement, while not perfect, is one they could live with. They did that in good faith. To me that is part of a just and democratic process and it is a liberation in terms of assertion of their equality.

I might ask the Reform member why his party's position is so patronizing to the Nisga'a people to assume what they negotiated is somehow not right for them? They are the people who did the negotiating. The member was not at the table. I was not at the table. It was their representatives and they believe that they have treaty. To me that is something they are willing to live with. I think it should be ratified by the House.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it was a few months ago that we had a debate in the House on another opposition motion from the Reform Party. Reformers were jumping up and down in the House and demanding that the House of Commons approve a resolution to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to get a constitutional ruling on the Nisga'a treaty. Here we are today with another opposition day motion from the Reform Party. They are jumping up and down today on what? Now they want a referendum.

One thing has become very clear in this debate, that the Reform Party wants anything but negotiation and resolution. It will look at anything rather than sit down, negotiate and look for workable solutions such as has happened with the Nisga'a treaty. That has been its agenda.

We need to be very clear that today's debate on the motion from the Reform Party has nothing to do with any principle around this issue. It has to do with a Reform Party agenda to create division. It wants to seize on this issue because it sees it as a political gold mine to create fear, uncertainty, bias and anti-aboriginal sentiment.

Surprise, surprise. It is now lined up with the B.C. Reform Party, the B.C. Liberal Party, and is on its little campaign with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Vander Zalm. What a great alliance. Let us make no mistake that it is really a campaign of political opportunism to systematically, consciously and deliberately conduct a campaign of misinformation, fear and opposition to entitlement of aboriginal rights.

If there were any doubt of that we just had to listen to question period today to hear the questions from Reform members, including those by the leader of the party who said that the Nisga'a treaty was an affront to equality. The Reform leader is dead wrong. He knows it. Everybody knows that this treaty is actually about equality. It is about social justice. It is about restoring rights to aboriginal people.

The motion before us today has nothing to do with democracy. The referendum just happens to be the flavour of the day that the Reform Party wants to use. It has nothing to do with democracy. It is clearly a desperate attempt to derail a 20 year treaty process that has been negotiated in good faith by the Nisga'a people, the representatives of the federal government and the provincial government. It has now resulted in an historic agreement that is just, that is fair, and that is a perfect fit with our constitution.

That is not just my opinion. That is the opinion of business leaders. That is the opinion of labour leaders. That is the opinion of thousands of people and hundreds and hundreds of groups in British Columbia that have come to the same conclusion.

I attended the aboriginal affairs parliamentary committee meeting last Friday in Vancouver. I had the honour to hear some of the witnesses who came before the committee. I heard Mr. Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; Mr. Jim Sinclair, president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour; Angie Schira from the British Columbia Federation of Labour; and Mr. John Shields, former president of the British Columbia government employees' union.

They laid out for us was how they as a labour movement had been very involved in talking to their members, the hundreds of thousands of members of the labour movement in British Columbia. They toured the province to get out information, to get feedback and participated in the advisory committee that existed.

We also heard from some very well known and high profile business leaders in our province, including the head of B.C. Hydro, a former Social Credit cabinet minister. We heard from the chair of Vancouver Board of Trade and from the chair of Canadian National Railway.

Their message was very simple and very clear. They too had observed and participated in the process. They wanted to see this treaty ratified by the House because they understood that it brought about a certainty, an equality and a real partnership in the relationship between aboriginal people, between the Nisga'a people and non-aboriginal people which includes the business community.

They told that committee very strongly in no uncertain terms that they wanted to see this treaty go through because they believed that negotiation and resolution was far preferable to conflict, litigation, and year after year of court battles, lawyers, uncertainty and economic chaos. That came from the business community.

I thought it was a very good hearing, but I have to say that I was also ashamed to be at that hearing. A bunch of people came in, apparently with their leader, Mr. Vander Zalm. He sat there very smugly with a grin on his face as his members hurled out obscenities and all kinds of insults. They were just a bunch of yahoos. Their sole agenda was to disrupt a democratic process and to create fear and uncertainty. Their agenda was the same as the Reform Party's agenda.

It is important for us to know exactly Mr. Vander Zalm's position. He is saying publicly that the treaty will perpetuate the old reservation system of isolated collectives and feudal overtones. Mr. Vander Zalm, like the B.C. Reform Party, like the federal Reform Party, is dead wrong. He knows that he is pedalling information that is a distortion of what is actually going on.

Even today in the Globe and Mail the chief negotiator for the federal government has made it clear that the Nisga'a final agreement brings to an end the application of the Indian Act to the Nisga'a and to their lands. The Nisga'a will own Nisga'a lands just as other Canadians hold title to their lands. Through the final agreement all the individual Nisga'a homeowners will receive private property rights to their residential lots. We can clearly see that Mr. Vander Zalm's assertion is dead wrong.

I also note that we heard from Reformers that they wanted a referendum. It is important to note that when B.C. as a province joined the Nisga'a treaty negotiations the government of the day agreed that the province would ratify the treaty in the legislature. There was never any mention of a referendum being raised.

By the way, who was the government in 1990? Surprise, surprise, It was Mr. Vander Zalm's government. It was the Social Credit government that agreed and set the ground rules for the treaty negotiation process.

We have heard that only through a referendum will there be consultation. It has become very clear that a referendum is being used as a smoke screen and a ploy to derail the treaty.

If we want to look at democratic process, if we want to look at consultation, we only have to see what happened in British Columbia and note that this legislation has had the longest debate of any legislation in the history of the province at 116 hours. There were 450 meetings with advisory groups and the public. There were 31 public hearings in 27 communities. There were 20,000 calls to a 1-800 information line and more than 250,000 visits to the provincial aboriginal affairs ministry website.

Anyone who has taken the time to objectively look at what this process has unfolded and to look at the information that has been provided to the public will be very clear that it has been transparent, democratic and open. There has been real debate on the issue.

Instead what we see today is a motion from the Reform Party that is simply frivolous. It is more than frivolous; it is destructive in its intention to sabotage what has been a very good model for a process for coming to a treaty. Not that this treaty will become the template for all other treaties, but the process of negotiation and resolution is something we should abide by.

I want to say to the Reform Party, shame on it for using the guise of a referendum to derail what has been a democratic process. Shame on it for saying that it stands up for equality, yet it is here today to deny the Nisga'a people their equality under the constitution. Shame on the Reform Party for distorting this treaty and for peddling all of its propaganda out to the communities so that people now are totally confused.

The truth must be told. It will be told. This treaty will be ratified.