Clifford Lincoln

[Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, the Government of Canada renamed Dorval Airport in honour of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The airport's new name will come into effect on January 1, 2004.

Even those who opposed the move must admit that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a distinguished Canadian, Quebecker and Montrealer who left his mark on our country's history. A tireless advocate of human rights, he gave us the Charter of Rights, promoted official languages, and was dedicated to the development of the have-not countries of the world and the well-being of their citizens.

That is why it is appropriate that the name of this illustrious Canadian and Quebecker should symbolize Montreal as an international point of entry and link to the citizens of the world.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to intervene very briefly to make a suggestion in regard to boundary redistribution.

I really think the process needs to be looked at and changed. We put the cart before the horse. Commissioners sit in a room and present rejigged boundaries, and then it is for us to go before the commission to argue that the boundaries they are suggesting are not logical.

It seems to me that the onus should be the other way, that the commissioners should first consult with the people in the ridings, institutions, volunteer sector, individuals, mayors or borough presidents, whatever they are, councillors and MPs to find out the key issue of identity, community of interests, historical links, and then make boundaries dependent on numbers, up to the 25%.

Instead, they propose, in my case for example, boundaries which are totally illogical, then we go before a commission and they go back to more or less square one, as the previous colleague pointed out.

I think we should look at changing the act to make it far more logical and to insist that there be a pre-consultation before boundaries are set by commissioners. It would avoid so much aggravation and cost of all of us going back to the commissioners and suggesting that the boundaries they have set do not make any sense at all, then them redoing them and in many cases going back to square one.

In closing I would like to say I am a Quebecker. I live in Quebec. I heard the comments of the colleague from Prince Albert. I know it is a debate but I do not think it is helpful to say that Quebec is going sideways and backwards, that we should look to Ontario and Alberta and correct ourselves. I do not agree with that.

I live in Quebec. I like the quality of life there. Quebec is perhaps the essence of what makes Canada a very special place, for me anyway. I choose to live in Quebec. I am a Quebecker by choice. These kinds of comments are not helpful to conciliation among us, the English speaking and the French speaking.

I just wanted to put this on the record, and I regret that this is happening.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that man is still around; he stands tall and believes fundamentally in the issue of human rights more than ever. I want to explain my position.

The context of and reason behind what I said in the Quebec National Assembly in 1988 was totally different from the current debate. I could turn the question around and say that, to me, the current definition of marriage, which dates back several thousands of years and was universally accepted by all the major religions and by all the people on Earth as the union between a man and a woman, is a given right that must be defended.

That is why, in the Canadian constitution, in the Charter of Rights, section 1 provides for reasonable limits. Earlier I quoted the Ontario court that said we could not invoke the constitution in matters of marriage, which put the former justice minister in contradiction with the Ontario court since she believed it was a clear and well established constitutional issue. The court ruled that this was not possible, because the constitution has to be flexible since society's traditions and customs constantly evolve. The court gave the areas of banking and criminal law as examples.

Marriage is much more than law. The Ontario court said that it was a legal issue, but it goes beyond the law. It seems to me that traditional marriage, the definition of marriage, is a complex web of natural law and moral, religious, legal and sociological elements—

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that the people who crafted our charter and crafted our laws were people of great wisdom who saw society as a very large issue, and that they crafted certain clauses, especially section 1 of the charter regarding reasonable limits, to enshrine the possibility that institutions that have been with us in the long term should be protected, that reasonable limits should be put on it to prevent the fact that societal mores, which evolve at a tremendous pace, should not interfere with basic institutional frameworks that have been with us, in this particular case, over the millenna. This is why I disagree fundamentally with the Ontario Court of Appeal, which compared marriage to banking and criminal law, as if marriage is one of those things that evolves, that today it is marriage between a man and a woman plus marriage between people of the same sex, and tomorrow it will be marriage of three, four, and five people together, because society evolves that way.

It seems to me that we should have exercised far more caution. We should have taken the step that the British have taken, which is to say this is an institution that has been there for thousands of years, so let us take our time and look at it deeply.

There have been judgments, but there is still the Supreme Court. We could have appealed. It would have given us two years to have debates here in the House of Commons to find solutions that would respect the rights of one another. I do not think we have done this, and because of a hasty, injudicious decision, we are now faced with tremendous polarization in society and, if the example of my riding is such, then I think this society is deeply into a malaise and is very polarized on this issue.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a consensus among us, and I am convinced there is, that this issue is complex, it is sensitive, it is emotional and it is divisive. This is why I think we should approach it with great mutual respect and with tolerance.

I would like to say here and now that I approach it with a feeling of total understanding of the position of the side that I do not share. At the same time, I have always had and continue to have a profound conviction and belief in the traditional definition of marriage.

While I treat the views of the other side with the greatest respect and sensitivity, I think we should be extremely cautious before we abandon the traditional definition of marriage and rely on the judgment of the Ontario court, which I have read and reread with a lot of seriousness. I would like to refer to that.

The position adopted by the judges was that the provisions of section 15(1), which enshrine the equality of individuals under law, when measured against the intent of section 1, which provides for reasonable limits in the application of rights and freedoms under the charter, should predominate. The court came to the conclusion that section 15 (1) should predominate because there were no grounds for invoking the reasonable limits under section 1. The court ruled unreservedly in favour of same sex marriage on the basis inter alia of section 15(1) of the charter.

Recently, before my colleagues, I deplored the fact that no consultation or debate took place as to whether we should appeal or not appeal to the Supreme Court, and how, if the decision were to refer, we should have had more debate or consultation as to what the substance of that reference should be. It was all imposed from on high. The Globe and Mail published a long article after my caucus intervention, following which I declined to give an interview, recognizing the confidentiality of caucus. It followed that up with an editorial questioning my good faith and bringing into comparison a speech I made in 1988 in the Quebec National Assembly about rights, a speech known as “rights are rights are rights”.

The contexts were totally different. In the 1988 case, the right of freedom of expression, a universal and fundamental human right enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, was taken away by legislation. Five resolutions of the party in power, my party, had been passed, saying we would recognize a judgment of the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court judged, we decided to use the notwithstanding clause to suspend the judgment.

What I said this time was very different. My questions were rhetorical in form. I addressed the whole question of limitation of acquired rights. I said that marriage in its traditional definition has been a universally accepted institution over the millennia. It is not just a matter of law. It is a complex web of social, legal, moral, religious, sociological and natural elements.

On this basis could it be, and it was a question, that the Supreme Court might see differently from the Ontario and B.C. courts regarding the reasonable limits provision of section 1 of the charter? Maybe not, but possibly yes. After all, this is why we have a Supreme Court: to have a court of last resort that reflects on these issues after lower courts have decided.

I looked at the judgment of the Ontario court. In its analysis, it says, “the issues raised in this appeal are questions of law”. It said further, “In our view, 'marriage' does not have a constitutionally fixed meaning”. In this it contradicts our previous justice minister, who felt it did. In saying it did not have a constitutionally fixed meaning, the court said that society evolves and compared this to banking and criminal law.

Many of us feel that marriage is far more than a strict question of law, that certain institutions, because of their intrinsic nature, are surely less flexible and evolutive than others. What about monogamy? Should it be evolutive under the law according to the evolving mores of society? Should we accept, in due course, poly-unions or polygamy because societal evolution dictates that way?

This is where the role of Parliament comes in. The role of Parliament is to address far more than the strict definition of laws. It is to take into account social mores and sociological impacts, all the various components that form a whole, a far broader concept of societal issues. Otherwise, EI as we know it today, employment insurance, would be ultra vires under the law because it does put people in different categories. An appeal would have given us time to address these issues and possibly craft a consensus among mutually respectful people.

When I married, I got married in two separate phases. There were two ceremonies, one a civil union, and, on a completely different date, a religious marriage. For me, I took the religious marriage as the date of my marriage.

There are solutions ahead of us if we had just looked at them, if we had discussed them, if we had had a debate here before the minister decided on his reference, which he imposed upon us, including the substance of it.

It is symptomatic that the U.K., which cherishes human rights just as much as we do, has decided to take 10 years to evolve on this issue and to find a consensus. It is symptomatic that so far only two nations in the world, the Netherlands and Belgium, have decided to put aside the universal acceptance of marriage.

I am extremely sad that because of the hasty and autocratic treatment of this very delicate issue by our government, we are now living polarization and emotion such that Canadians have been divided into two camps. The letters fly back and forth; the emotion is intense. I am convinced that if we had adopted a more judicious treatment of it, we could have avoided the division and malaise we have visited upon ourselves.

I keep hoping and praying, against all hopes I must say, but one has to hope, that somehow we will find it in ourselves, maybe through this debate, to get together and find a solution that is acceptable to those who claim that marriage is for all of us and to those who claim, like I do, that the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman should endure into the long term.

[Committees of the House, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 27, 2003, in relation to Bill C-36, an act to establish the Library and Archives of Canada, to amend the Copyright Act and to amend certain Acts in consequence.

Having carefully considered Bill C-36, the committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Committees of the House, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting”, concerning the state of the Canadian broadcasting system.

This report has been two and a half years in the making. I am exceptionally pleased that it was done by a parliamentary committee of the House of Commons. I would like to thank all the members who took part in the work, the researchers, the expert advisers and all the parliamentary team that helped put together this very comprehensive report.

[House of Commons, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice, in these times of frequent bad news, to be able to find a reason to celebrate.

In last Tuesday's sixth annual soccer challenge between pages and MPs, I am pleased to report that MPs prevailed by a score of 5 to 3. As in previous years, the spirit was keen and competitive but also most friendly.

I want to salute and congratulate, in particular, the pages for their enthusiasm and their terrific sportsmanship, which was greatly appreciated.

I send a very special thanks to the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, the creator and inspirational anchor of this annual event.

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, especially because he is close to the scene, and not having heard the Minister of National Defence, it would be really unfair of me to characterize the speech of the Minister of National Defence.

I am very glad about the position he has announced. Canada has always taken the stand that weaponization of space is against our fundamental interests. I am glad we are reinforcing it through the speech of the Minister of National Defence and that this would be our position.

If discussions take place, I hope that one of the fundamental priorities that we put forward will be that we cannot join in any system where there is even a little possibility that it will lead to weaponization of space.

As to former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, he is an eminent spokesperson on that issue because of his previous experience, especially his tremendous experience as a peacemaker. He is the person who inspired the land mines treaty and the international criminal court. We should listen to his words very carefully.

Finally, in regard to the comments of the parliamentary secretary, what scares me is that the Canadian Alliance motion cleverly refers to any system. Any system means any system that would weaponize space and I would be totally against that.

[Supply, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear Mr. Axworthy speak. I wish I could have been there, but I read his article in the Globe and Mail and I know his feelings about this issue. He wrote an extensive article in the Globe and Mail some time ago. I endorse his views 100%.

He is warning us that we are falling more and more in the orbit of the United States in military defence and that we should be most careful, especially in regard to this new star wars. People do not want to call it star wars because that evokes weapons in space and they want to avoid that, but he and John Polanyi and many other observers are saying that is really what it means.

In regard to the Minister of National Defence, I did not hear his speech. If it is a matter of just discussing with the United States without any precondition and leaving the options open to us in Parliament to vote yea or nay, then there should be discussions certainly. Why not? Before doing that however, we should be sensitive to the point of view of many of us who do not want the discussions just to be a forerunner to a decision. We want the chance to debate this issue as it is a fundamental issue for our country. I hope that this is the spirit in which the Minister of National Defence has spoken and I am sure it is.