Libby Davies

[Criminal Code, October 27th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to reintroduce my bill to repeal section 43 of the criminal code. This is the only section of the criminal code that is permissive in that it condones the use of force toward a child as a means of correction or discipline. The repeal of section 43 would make it clear that the use of physical force as a means of discipline is totally unacceptable and inappropriate for children and should not be sanctioned by law.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to comment further on the issue of property rights. We have heard all day from Reform Party members that this treaty somehow does not allow property rights for Nisga'a people.

Would the member not agree, if he has read the treaty, that the treaty transfers ownership of the land back to the Nisga'a people as a people but that the treaty allows various ways for people to privately own the land they live on? It specifically says that individuals cannot get less in terms of property rights than they already have. They can only get more. I ask the member to confirm that is exactly what the treaty says.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we are at this point today because of what has historically happened to aboriginal people. This agreement is so historic because it is moving away from a paternal colonizing administration and legislation that did oppress aboriginal people in this country. The treaty will move us beyond that and move the Nisga'a people forward to the future.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his thoughtful comments. Obviously he has done quite a lot of research on some of the questions that have been raised by members of the Reform Party. Again they are are speaking very loudly and on numerous occasions are somehow suggesting that the rights of Nisga'a women will be diminished under the treaty. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I agree entirely with the member's comments in terms of the Canadian constitution, the charter of rights and freedoms, and the treaty itself which clearly lays out an enhanced citizenship for Nisga'a men and women. This is really what the treaty is about. It is the heart and soul of the treaty to recognize full citizenship and full equality. If we cannot get that straight, then I think Reform members need to go back to their researchers or wherever they get their information and check their facts.

When I first heard them put out this line that the Nisga'a treaty was somehow denigrating the rights of women, I was really shocked. I wondered whether this could be the case. I checked to find out if that was correct and of course it was completely false.

We need to be very clear on the record that the rights of aboriginal women within the Nisga'a treaty are fully protected. The treaty itself enhances the sense of citizenship and participation for all Nisga'a people.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said such a word. If I did, I certainly did not intend to use unparliamentary language, but I do believe that inaccurate information is being presented in the House and that is a matter on the record. I certainly did not intend to use unparliamentary language and I will withdraw any language that I used that is unparliamentary.

I would like to go through some of the arguments that were used this morning by the Reform Party. One of them was that this is a perpetuation of a 19th century approach. I want to state very clearly that I think what we have seen in the past through the Indian Act would represent that.

If nothing else, this treaty represents a genuine attempt by all of the parties involved, the Nisga'a people, the provincial government and the federal government, to produce a modern day treaty within the constitution of Canada, within the laws of Canada, to provide self-determination and a sense of pride and future for the Nisga'a people. For the leader of the Reform Party to suggest otherwise, I believe, is a misrepresentation.

We also heard from the Reform Party this morning that this treaty will now become the template, the one size fits all for all future treaties, including the 50 in British Columbia and however many there are in Canada. This is completely wrong. This has not been stated anywhere.

This treaty went through a very good process. I hope it is reproduced and used as a model for other treaties. The treaty itself is something that stands on its own merit. It is not written in this treaty or in any other policy or legislation that it will be replicated. I want to put that to rest.

We also heard that the Nisga'a treaty will somehow mirror what has been a very tragic situation with the fishing industry on the east coast, that we will see a parallel with the Nisga'a treaty. Again the Reform Party is dead wrong in the line it is peddling on that. The Reform Party is misleading people and presenting information that is simply not the case. In actual fact, this treaty clearly outlines that if other groups are prevented from fishing for whatever reason, then that will also apply. It is clearly very erroneous information.

We also heard from the member for Skeena that this treaty is going to cost a huge amount of money. I think he mentioned the figure of $1.2 billion. I may have that slightly wrong but it was of that magnitude. Again I want to say that this information is inaccurate and simply not correct.

The treaty provides for a total of $253 million in a one time payment over 15 years from the federal government to the Nisga'a people. There are also contributions from the B.C. government in terms of a land value of $108.6 million and $37.5 million in forgone forestry revenues. Again, the arguments are false.

We also heard that this has been a secretive deal and a closed door process. This treaty had many public hearings and fora. More than 40 hearings alone were held by the parliamentary committee in British Columbia. Anyone who wanted to be heard could state their case and opinions on this treaty. Again, it is misinformation.

At the end of the day we do have a choice here. We have a choice to negotiate treaties in good faith in our modern day world and recognize aboriginal people as full citizens, or we can continue with chaos and litigation in the courts. I think most members of the House have made the correct decision. It is unfortunate that the Reform Party has chosen not to do the honourable thing.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak in the House today on what is truly a very historic occasion, the first day of debate on the Nisga'a treaty.

I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, for her very thoughtful comments, particularly as they relate to the international situation concerning aboriginal land and what has taken place in other jurisdictions. She has shown us, in a very thoughtful way, that what is happening here in Canada is very much in context with what is taking place in other parts of the world.

As a person from British Columbia, I must say that the work, endurance and patience of the Nisga'a leadership and the Nisga'a people has really been outstanding. They have been negotiating the treaty for more than 20 years. For more than 100 years, they have been moving through a process, sometimes with huge conflict and huge oppression, to get to get to this point today. The leadership that has been shown and the support that has come from the grassroots of the Nisga'a people is something that really makes this a historic occasion.

I want to begin my remarks by quoting Nisga'a Tribal Council president Joseph Gosnell. Yesterday as he arrived in Ottawa he called on the Reform Party leader to ensure that the members of the Reform Party caucus stopped making incorrect allegations about the Nisga'a treaty which is currently before parliament. I thought it was very significant that the tribal council president was making this statement:

We understand that the role of the official opposition is to oppose government initiatives—

That is part of our democratic tradition. He continued:

—and we have no fear of a genuine debate in parliament. However we also believe that it is the responsibility of all members of parliament to provide accurate information, and not to attack the Nisga'a treaty on the basis of allegations that are just not accurate.

I wanted to read that into the record because I had hoped that on the opening day of debate of this historic treaty that it would be an honourable debate, that it would be a debate where yes, there would be criticisms and there would be issues, but it would be a debate based on facts and real information.

Instead, the leader of the Reform Party, the Leader of the Opposition, chose not to listen to the wise words of the Nisga'a Tribal Council president. What he and the hon. member for Skeena, the Reform Party spokesperson on aboriginal issues, chose to do less than an hour ago was to continue their campaign of misinformation and allegations of grossly inaccurate information. They chose to continue a campaign of fearmongering and divisiveness within the community.

I want to say shame on the members of the Reform Party for doing that. Shame on them for not sticking to the facts and having an honourable debate in the House. What they chose to do today is really a contempt of this process and of parliament. I wish it had not happened that way, but that is the way it seems to be going.

It is one thing to debate and have an intelligent criticism, but it is something quite different to deliberately manufacture and peddle misinformation and completely false allegations about this treaty.

I would like to go over a couple of things that were said this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. First, he said that it was their sole interest to establish a new and better relationship with the aboriginal community, among the aboriginal community. Then he went on to say that it is not in the long range interests of the Nisga'a people to have this treaty. This was repeated by the hon. member for Skeena.

Then the Leader of the Opposition characterized the treaty as being a perpetuation of a 19th century approach. I would say that it is the Indian Act that is the case and the experience of a separate law for separate people.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, October 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, having listened to the member for Skeena I find it incredible that so much misinformation continues to come forward from that member and other members of the Reform Party. There are many contradictions in the arguments they put forward in debate.

Just a few moments ago we heard the member for Skeena state that he and the Reform Party believe that aboriginal people such as the Nisga'a people should get on with their own lives and that they should be treated with respect, dignity and equality.

If the member, his leader and other members of the Reform Party really believe that, why would they deny the Nisga'a people the treaty when they finally sat at the table as equals with respect, dignity, due process and open public process to negotiate the treaty?

It seems to me that the Reform Party is absolutely hypocritical in its approach to this question. On the one hand the Reform Party claims to be upholding the rights and equality of aboriginal people, but on the other hand it is prepared to sabotage the agreement. I would like the member to comment on that.

It was quite astounding this morning to listen to the leader of the Reform Party say that he wanted to show another way for treaties in the future. He wanted the Nisga'a people to adopt what in effect was the market ideology. That is what he was calling on the Nisga'a people to do.

If the member believes in the individuality and rights of aboriginal people, surely he must admit and acknowledge that they have their own position, history, experience and arguments to determine their own future. Why would the Reform Party say that it is its way or no way, that it is the market ideology or otherwise the Reform Party will trash them? I would like the member to comment on that.

[Petitions, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition that draws attention to the terrible consequences of the sanctions against Iraq.

The petitioners call on parliament to urge that all Canadian military personnel and equipment now taking part in the blockade of Iraq be recalled, and that Canada use all possible diplomatic pressures to urge the U.N. to end the sanctions.

The petitioners point out the devastating impact particularly on children. As a result of the embargo, 650,000 Iraqi children have died.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if Canadians were asked if they believe that housing is a basic human right they would answer with a resounding yes. Most everyone understands that without the basic provision of safe, secure, affordable housing it is pretty hard to make anything else in one's life work.

Most everyone gets that fundamental point but apparently not the Liberal government. Despite the Golden report, the report of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, my own report from my travels across Canada this winter, the report of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, CMHC itself, and so on, we are still living with the terrible record of being the only industrialized country without a national housing strategy.

I asked myself how could this be when in 1990 the Minister of Finance, then in opposition, decried the fact that poverty and homelessness existed in Canada. “It is reprehensible in a country as rich as Canada”, he said. How can it be that we still have a housing disaster in Canada today when a minister of homelessness was appointed in March of this year? How can a country as wealthy as Canada be condemned by the UN for its appalling record on homelessness, particularly for aboriginal people?

These shameful conditions exist not because of the fault of individual people who are without housing or are homeless but because of deliberate, conscious public policy by design that has created a housing crisis.

Let us make no mistake. What we see today on our streets, in the waiting lists for co-op housing and in every community where housing is threatened is a direct result of a terrible decision made by the government in 1993 to dump housing and end construction of social and co-op housing. We are living the consequences today of the decision made in 1993 to abandon social housing. I implore the federal government to look at what is going on today.

The minister responsible for homelessness and I were at an Ottawa luncheon that launched an instant food hot pack and a corporate sponsorship drive for the Ottawa Food Bank. The Ottawa Food Bank needs all the help it can get, but the people forced to rely on charity in this wealthy country need real solutions, not band aids or hot packs.

My caucus has strongly supported the 1% solution for housing advocated by the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee and now supported by organizations across the country. We in the NDP have made very clear and will continue to demand that the federal government take responsibility for housing.

Housing Canadians is important. We want to see a national housing strategy. We want to see the 1% solution. I have a motion coming before the House that is soon to be debated and speaks to this matter precisely. I urge the government to do the right thing, to show responsibility, to work with the provinces and to implement a national housing strategy so that no man, no woman, no child or family is lacking this basic human need. Will the government do that?

[Homelessness, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the homeless and people in need of housing are fed up with waiting. We have heard not one peep and not one unit of housing has been built since this tour.

What is the minister's solution? Why is Canada the only industrialized country without a national housing strategy? Is the solution to just add water and forget the housing?