Libby Davies

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments in support of the Reform motion. The more I hear of this debate and the more I hear some members speak and where they are coming from, I actually get very scared about what is an obsession with the issue.

Now we hear from the hon. member that he wants not only to define marriage as he sees it but also to define spouse as it relates to marriage. I have to question what right do I, or does the member or anyone else, have to do that.

People who live together may define themselves as or may self-identify as spouses. They may be in a common law relationship as man and woman. They may be of the same sex.

I find quite frightening the way this debate is going in terms of hearing on one hand that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, which the member has so eloquently called forward from the past. Yet the very motion and debate that is taking place would do exactly that. It would enforce the state into people's private lives and define people's relationships.

For what reason do we need to do that? Who is this threatening? Who is being threatened by people's choice and decision about how they live if it is not causing harm to other people?

I am genuinely asking that question because I have difficulty understanding for what reason the member believes the state should be making this enforcement in terms of a definition not only of marriage but now of spouse. What will be next? Will we define the family?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak about immigrants coming to Canada. I was recently at the citizenship court and heard the judge speaking to new Canadians who were swearing the oath of allegiance to Canada and becoming citizens. The citizenship judge in Vancouver told them that the most important thing about becoming a Canadian was understanding diversity and equality.

I was very surprised to hear the comments from the member that somehow the particular view that the member holds would be enforced on all other Canadians.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Reform member for Calgary Centre today, it seems to me a massive contradiction to say that the Reform Party is committed to equality and is not against anyone.

The motion clearly states a bias and an opinion to which the Reform Party and the member are entitled, but to force that opinion or bias about marriage being between a heterosexual couple on all Canadians, it seems to me, is a direct attack on equality and a direct attack on many members of society.

It is interesting to hear the member also say that a marriage without children is technically incomplete. I am sure that all the heterosexual couples who for whatever reason have chosen not to have children will be devastated to learn that they are technically incomplete.

What authority does the member and the Reform Party have to impose their views on other Canadians if they believe in equality? If they believe in equality, where does that authority come from?

[Petitions, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by people who are desperately concerned about the impact of the sanctions against Iraq.

They point out in their petition that four million people, or one-fifth of the population, are currently starving to death in Iraq, and that there have been 650,000 Iraqi children who have died as a result of embargo related causes. This is from a UNICEF report.

The petitioners call on parliament to use all possible diplomatic pressures to urge the UN to end the sanctions against Iraq based on humanitarian compassion and the need to keep children alive.

[Status Of Women, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Secretary of State for the Status of Women said that women's equality was at the top of the agenda. I have to say that the evidence from NAC and from women is very different, whether it is massive cuts to EI, federal stalling on pay equity, federal abandonment of social housing or no action on early childhood education. We have to question where the Liberal commitment for equality for women is.

I ask the minister, what concrete steps have been taken on the national early childhood education program?

[Housing, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first, I hope that the minister of homelessness shows up because so far all she has done is cancel meetings.

Second, a RRAP program does not assist people who are homeless or destitute on the street.

What we want to know is where are the dollars, where is the plan and where are the proposals and strategies from the federal government to get back into the housing program and work with the provinces and municipalities?

I have to remind the minister that B.C. is only one of two provinces still providing social housing, whereas his government does not.

[Housing, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, at the opening of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities tomorrow, the key issue that is going to be facing municipal leaders is homelessness and the housing crisis in Canada.

It has been more than two months since the Prime Minister appointed a minister of homelessness, but there has not been one solitary homeless person who has been helped in Canada. There has been no action, no plan, no dollars.

Where is the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Canadian government at the FCM to provide housing assistance, and for the federal government to become involved again in a housing program?

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the agenda of the Reform Party is not really about dealing with substantive issues around self-government and modern day treaties. I think the Reform Party has an opportunity to play a very positive role in that regard. Reform members have an opportunity to be at the table.

However, as the member has suggested, I think there is a different agenda.

They understand there is uncertainty in what they do with many other issues, whether taxation, social programs or the income tax system. They play on that uncertainty and fear which divides people. They play on peoples' emotions and set people against each other. We have to stand up and say that we will not tolerate it.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member was restrained. I think that is something that the Reform Party is well known for, being restrained. Reform members are full of restraint.

It surprises me that the line that is being pedalled is that it is only members of the Reform Party who understand this agreement. It is not the Nisga'a people, it is not the NDP, it is not the Liberals, it is not the labour movement, it is not Bob White, it is only members of the Reform Party who have seen the problems, the alleged problems, of this agreement. We are all intelligent people. We can read these agreements. We can come to our own conclusions. I would again assert that the Reform Party has a different agenda.

In terms of myths being perpetuated, I would suggest that it is the Reform Party which is perpetuating myths about this agreement. The fact is that the laws that would be conferred under this agreement in no way violate the constitution, in no way violate provincial law. They have been agreed to through due process. They are within the context of the constitution. In fact the myth that there is taxation without representation is also false and totally incorrect. It is very clear that there will be taxes paid and, if it is non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a land, those taxes will go to the provincial government and the Nisga'a laws will apply to Nisga'a people.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in reading the Reform motion before us today, the first thing that struck me in reading it was that the Reform Party is pursuing the exact same agenda as the B.C. Liberals.

What is that agenda? It is an agenda about dividing people. It is an agenda about creating fear and uncertainty. It is an agenda that actually sabotages the progress that is being made in bringing about an historic agreement with the Nisga'a people. It is an agenda that creates red herrings and smoke screens.

Let us be very clear. The Reform Party does not want clarification of this treaty by the supreme court. Reformers have the same access to legal opinions as any other member or political party. They do not want clarification. They want to destroy the democratic process that has been in place, to bring about a 111-year struggle, to finally have a modern day treaty with the Nisga'a people.

If Reform members are surprised by the strong response which all members of this House, other than themselves, have to this motion, it is not just because of the motion that is before us today, as my NDP colleague pointed out earlier, it is because day after day, week after week, month after month we have heard members of the Reform Party stand in this House and in public to undermine, attack and reinforce any negative examples they can find.

Is there any doubt that we would come to the conclusion that they have a political agenda? It is not about clarification or doing the right thing, but about undermining a democratic process and creating fear among people. I find that appalling. I have watched it in B.C. with the B.C. Liberals and now we are seeing it with the Reform Party, whose agenda is identical.

We are told that this is about clarification of legal questions, a very thoughtful approach. There are ample legal opinions available which tell us that section 35 of the constitution states that the treaty rights of aboriginal people have to be respected. We know that section 35 covers previous treaties and we know that it has provision and room to cover treaties in the future. It is very clear that the Nisga'a treaty is not something that constitutes a constitutional amendment. Legal opinions, including that of the dean of Osgoode Hall and many others, have very clearly outlined this, and the Reform Party knows this full well.

It is interesting to note the following in today's debate in looking at other positions the Reform Party has taken. Why is it that in this particular instance Reformers want to go to the supreme court, but in other instances, for example the child pornography issue, they were jumping up and down, saying that we could not go to the supreme court, that it was the powers of parliament and the action of parliament that counted? All of a sudden we have a double standard.

Why is it that members of the Reform Party challenge this, a domestic treaty which is clearly within the context and the legal confines of our constitution, the charter of rights and all of our laws, but when we have international treaties like the MAI or NAFTA, which do constitute a massive transfer of power from democratically elected governments to multinational corporations, there is silence? There is not a word. They are out there campaigning and upholding that kind of direction. It is no wonder there is a very strong response to this motion. This is an issue of credibility on which the Reform Party has no leg to stand on.

I listened to the debate earlier today and I heard the member for Skeena say that the charter of rights of Nisga'a people have been put in peril. I thought, what does that mean?

First, the member never spelled it out, so I do not know what he meant, but I thought it was quite a patronizing comment. We have the Nisga'a people who, through their duly elected representatives, have been full partners in a democratic process to bring together this treaty and we have a Reform Party member saying that it is the charter of rights of the Nisga'a people themselves that is in peril.

I think the hypocrisy and the patronizing attitude that has come forward from the Reform Party after so many months and years of campaigning against rights and self-government for aboriginal people is really something that is quite appalling.

Let us be very clear. The Nisga'a treaty does not create new constitutional rights for the Nisga'a or anyone else. No one's rights are affected. I would challenge the Reform Party to dispute that.

What will this treaty do? For the very first time important provincial laws will now apply to people who used to be exempt from them because they were governed by the federal Indian Act. This treaty does not create a racially based order of government. On the contrary, it moves us away from what has been a very dependent relationship.

The treaty provides powers within the constitution similar to the powers that a municipality may have. It is very clear that Nisga'a laws must conform to the charter of rights and freedoms and to federal and provincial standards.

Contrary again to what members of the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberals have been saying, non-Nisga'a who own land on Nisga'a territory will pay property taxes to the province and the Nisga'a can only tax their own people living on Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a will pay federal and provincial income taxes and sales taxes. Let us get the record straight.

We also see in the motion that there is a reference made to labour standards and that somehow these are undermined. I thought that was a curious thing to be coming from the Reform Party. I did a little research. I have a letter from the B.C. Federation of Labour, dated April 21, 1999, from the then president, Kenneth Georgetti, who stated:

The Labour movement in B.C. endorses wholeheartedly the provisions respecting labour relations in the Nisga'a Agreement. All labour rights under federal and provincial law are maintained. This means that trade unions will continue to be able to organize on treaty settlement land.

More than that, D.C. Haggard, President of I.W.A Canada, stated:

Members of Parliament, and the general public, should be aware that the B.C. Federation of Labour met frequently with the Nisga'a during the period of intense negotiations. I attended many of those meetings.

He went on to state:

Since the laws and precedents under which those tribunals will make decisions remain unchanged, the B.C. labour movement, and I.W.A. Canada in particular, support those provisions and the proposed Treaty.

That comes from the labour movement itself.

We have to be very clear about this motion today. It is members of the Reform Party and the B.C. Liberals who are in cahoots on this, and on many other things I might add. If they get their way, what would happen? This is what we would have if we followed their agenda. We would have more economic uncertainty. We would be leaving land claim costs unresolved that amount to billions of dollars in investment and development. We would also have a situation where important land claims issues would be settled by the courts, with all kinds of wrangling, instead of through democratic, open, above-board negotiations where third party interests are recognized and where public hearings are held.

Again I refer to what Reform members said earlier today, that no one bothered to listen, that there was no consultation. They have to be joking. They should look at the record in B.C. There were thousands of public hearings, there was public debate, and committees of the legislature travelled around the province.

Let us be very clear. The Reform Party knows full well that the Nisga'a agreement is not a constitutional amendment. I urge the House to soundly reject this motion. Let us move forward on human rights, on reconciliation with first nations people and on settling land claims through goodwill, through negotiation; not through court battles, not through roadblocks. Let us move forward and let us reject this motion.