Libby Davies

[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.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from about 300 petitioners from the Province of Ontario who are calling on the government to ensure that the downloading of the urban native housing program does not go ahead.

The petitioners are expressing their concern about the federal government abandoning its fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people by proceeding with the downloading of social housing. Most of these constituents are from the Province of Ontario and are outlining their very serious concerns about the abandonment and the downloading of aboriginal housing to the province.

[Human Rights, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister is hosting Andres Pastrana, the president of Colombia, while in that country massive atrocities continue as its population is subjected to horrific human rights violations, disappearances and murder.

If one is a labour leader or an activist, one's life is in peril. If one does not agree with the establishment, one may disappear. Even if one happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, one is at risk.

The federal NDP stands in solidarity with the people of Colombia, and we say to the Prime Minister and the Canadian government “Stop the killing”. Tell Pastrana that the 2,700 trade unionists who have been killed since 1987 is unconscionable and justice must be done.

The Canadian Council of Churches Tribunal and Amnesty International have massive evidence of the brutality and murders. Today the Canadian government, in meetings with the Colombian president, must make it clear that under international law the Government of Colombia must be held accountable.

[Housing, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the very negative consequences of the downloading of social housing and co-op housing by the federal government has been the confusion around the management of co-op housing.

As the minister of public works knows there has been a very spirited campaign from the co-operative housing federation for a third sector agency. The minister has agreed to this in Ontario, but there is also a campaign in B.C. to have the same kind of arrangement.

Will the minister respond in the affirmative to the request from the co-op housing movement, and when will he make an announcement that third sector management will take place?

[Child Poverty, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after a year and a half of talking about a national children's agenda, the federal government has released a brightly packaged piece that talks a lot about vision but demonstrates very little. In fact, this supposed blueprint for children is only a starting point for public consultation, which in turn will lead to a vision document in the fall, which may or may not lead to concrete action a year from now.

Let us put things in perspective. In the time it has taken for the federal government to come up with this discussion paper, thousands more children have slipped below the poverty line. Why? Because Canada now has the dubious distinction of having cut more on social programs than any other G-7 nation.

Poor Canadians are suffering because the federal budget has directed not one single federal dollar to families on social assistance since 1985 and because of broken promises on a national child care program.

Canadian children need action, not glossy discussion papers. I call on the government to fast track this process to ensure that it is children who benefit, not Liberal policy wonks and pollsters.

[Kosovo, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has consistently pressured the government to find a peaceful resolution. Even the Prime Minister has said that the timing of the stopping of the bombing is something that can be negotiated.

That time is now. Every day that the government hesitates is a day marked by more bombs, more destruction and more deaths. Will the Canadian government call on NATO to suspend the bombing immediately?

[Kosovo, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, even as the G-8 agreement gets us closer to a peace settlement in Kosovo and as the list of people calling for a peaceful resolution continues to grow, NATO shows no sign of letting up on its strategy of expanded air strikes and escalating aggression.

My question is for the foreign affairs minister. Why will the Canadian government not seize on this opportunity to lead the way for a suspension of the bombing in the Balkans to give peace a chance?

[Taber, Alberta, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party we join with all members in a profound expression of sympathy and grief to the community of Taber at its loss, a loss that is shared across the country.

To the family of Jason Lang, we can only begin to understand the horror and tragedy of the loss of a young and promising life. To the family of Shane Christmas, we wish for hope and strength that this young man will come through both physically and emotionally.

There are many questions and we in the NDP like all Canadians want to find answers to prevent the senseless violence that occurs.

As we grieve surely we must also struggle to find the means to channel violence and social exclusion in our society into a strengthening of our communities so that young people are not marginalized and left feeling lost but are part of a genuine human family that fosters respect, understanding and dignity for all.

The people of Taber have bravely demonstrated to us all the strength of their community to cope, to understand and to begin to heal. Their loss can never be forgotten.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, despite what the solicitor general says about funding for the RCMP, the fact remains that there are more than 400 vacancies in the RCMP in B.C. The solicitor general knows full well that lack of federal funding is to blame. Now there are new studies which show how poorly paid RCMP officers are.

What will the solicitor general do to rectify the situation, or do we tell the people of B.C. that this is just one more example of a fine Liberal performance to let people down?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-374 as put forward by the hon. member for Témiscamingue.

The bill coming forward at this time provides us with a very important opportunity to talk about youth violence and some of the causes of youth violence in society. Having listened to the government member and the Reform Party member, it is fair to say that all members of the House share a very deep concern about the nature of violence in society. The consequences that we see in communities like Taber, Alberta, or in Colorado are very tragic and devastating.

This debate is also about a very specific bill that has come forward. It gives us an opportunity to do something that is concrete. I congratulate the hon. member and his constituents who have worked so hard to bring the issue forward. It is amazing that 400,000 people signed a petition calling on the House to support the bill. This is something not to be put aside. That is an incredible amount of support in the community. It speaks to the very deep concern of people about what is happening in society.

As we have heard, the bill would not ban toys. The issue is not toys. According to the bill, where there is production, marketing or sale of various toys and where the use that is being encouraged through written instruction is actually something that is violent, that would be prohibited under the Criminal Code.

That is a very common sense approach. It is something we should all be supporting. This is a concrete step we could take in the House from a legislative viewpoint to deal with the vast array of products on the market that are available to young people and children. In this specific instance there are actually instructions that are condoning, encouraging and supporting a very negative and violent use.

The bill should be supported. One of the issues coming from the bill is the question of social responsibility by the manufacturing industry of children's toys. We are talking about a multibillion dollar industry.

Parents want to do the right thing. Their kids are subject to massive overload in advertising and are asking to have this toy and that toy. Most parents try to do the right thing in terms of monitoring these products, of trying to figure out whether they are toys or games that are suitable and appropriate for the age of the child and whether or not they are violent. Most parents and most communities feel absolutely overwhelmed by the barrage of stuff on the market.

Let us not forget we are talking about a marketplace. We are talking about companies that basically are making massive profits as a result of peddling and marketing toys such as the ones being described today and their attached instructions.

There is a very serious issue of social responsibility in the manufacturing industry of children's toys. If the bill were approved, or if the issue were sent to the justice committee, it would go some distance in saying to that industry that we expect a measure of social responsibility. It is entirely unacceptable to be marketing toys which encourage children to be violent and to deny feelings of care, love and responsibility which they learn from their families or communities. Children are faced with very conflicting messages in society.

A primary responsibility in the House in terms of the legislation we enact is the protection of our children. We value that as a society. It is not just about freedom of choice or freedom of speech. It is about protecting children and saying that the marketplace has run amok. The marketplace is now dictating and selling products in such a fashion that it is contributing to a lot of confusion, a lot of mixed messages.

A government member raised a question as to whether or not this kind of product would actually lead to violence against people. We are talking about toys for sure, but does it lead to further violence against people? That is the same issue that is being raised by the member who put forward the bill. That is why the member is suggesting it should go to the justice committee for a proper debate about issues of violence so that we can look at some of the underlying causes. That has to include the products available on the market and the way they are marketed.

The New Democratic Party is very much in support of the bill and very much in support of the debate taking place, in particular at the justice committee, given the tragedies of the past week where communities and families are grappling with the senseless violence which takes place around us.

We do have a responsibility to be reflective, to step back and ask, “Where can we begin to put this picture right”. There is a legislative and a community response to how we develop healthy, strong communities and how we involve children in our society by ensuring that there is no social isolation which I think is one of factors that is beginning to emerge with the tragedy in Taber.

We see programs that have been cut to the bone. I remember having a conversation with one of my colleagues who was telling me about the level of suicides in her community in New Brunswick. She said there were no youth preventative programs available and no youth drop-ins. The kids had nowhere to go. All these issues are linked. We all understand that they are linked but it is sometimes hard for us to actually figure out how specifically we can begin to address these issues.

We should not put aside the opportunity that is being presented today in the House. We should actually move forward with this kind of initiative and not just see it buried on some dusty shelf as a private member's bill.

Let us take the bill today and continue discussion of it in the justice committee because of the importance in terms of the debate that can flow from that on how we can deal with products on the marketplace. We want to ensure that there is adequate regulation so that children's toys are not used for a violent purpose. We do not condone nor encourage behaviour that is violent in terms of how kids interact with inanimate objects, with their peers, with other children or within their community.

We would support the hon. member if, in his closing remarks, he chooses to seek the consent of the House for this matter be referred to the justice committee for further debate. We believe it is a very important initiative. We owe it to the 400,000 people, who took the time to think about this issue, to not let debate die on the bill. Something useful and beneficial can come out of it. It may well be an amendment to the Criminal Code or some other option, but it is something that should be supported.