Dan McTeague

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the hon. member for Mississauga East had the intestinal fortitude and courage to listen to her constituents, her heart and her mind on a matter of fundamental importance which I believe is at the base of what we should be doing in the House of Commons.

Previous speakers have alluded to the fact that the process by which we determine whether an item is votable is fair. The place where we ought to make that decision is in the House of Commons. We should do it in an open fashion as transparency is extremely important.

I am perfectly comfortable with the presentation made by the hon. member who moved the motion and by the hon. member who seconded it, and who is the other member for Mississauga.

It is unfortunate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would not provide concurrence to make this a votable item. That being the case, it is important for us to understand what the bill is about. If the bill is not allowed to proceed today, I can assure the House that the bill and bills like it will come again before the House of Commons and we will have a day where openness will once again prevail.

A person who commits a crime must serve the full time. Too much evidence in the past has supported the excuse that serial rapists or serial murderers should only serve one sentence for all their crimes. Justice does not fit the crime. For that reason it is extremely imperative that we try, at the very least as an open Parliament, to provide justice not for those who have been accused and tried before a fair court of law but for those who are the victims. We owe it to them. We owe it to their families. We owe it to safe streets and safe communities, a commitment in our red book of 1993.

That is why as a Liberal I am proud to say that the bill speaks to the heart of the Liberal Party as I understand it and as many Canadians understood it when they voted Liberal in the last election.

Canada's criminal justice system has to be transformed. Convicted multiple murderers and serial rapists must know they will not get away from serving the full time for all their actions and will not have their sentencing behind bars reduced by concurrent sentencing. Concurrent sentencing for murder and sexual assault serves no purpose but to let convicted individuals escape the full weight of society's repulsion for their acts.

Our government is committed to safe homes and safe streets. It is my belief and the belief of most ordinary Canadians that consecutive sentencing falls within the commitment stated in our red book in terms of the safety and security of all Canadians.

The hon. member alluded to the fact that the bill acknowledges what is a debate and what is currently acceptable discourse in the homes and among many people in the learned societies of the country. Far from being stifled it is my view that the bill should be allowed to see the open and fresh air of debate.

It is unfortunate that the legislation only reached second reading. I can assure the member who had the courage of her convictions to bring forward Bill C-274 that her words today will not be forgotten in her constituency or in mine. As a member representing one of the larger ridings not just in metro Toronto but in all of Canada, I know the member has the support of thousands of Canadians for her courage to do this in the face of adversity.

It is easy for me to explain the different ideologies of the criminal justice system, but one must understand that, in the end, the victims must benefit from a good justice system. The forms of justice we have today do not work. The bill is legitimized by what people said and also by the emotions created by people like Clifford Olson and Bernardo.

The bill is important in and of itself. It is important for the Parliament of Canada to be able to debate a matter of substantial importance to all Canadians. We cannot wait until another election to hem and haw about what we will do.

While it is important to bring in all sorts of theories and ideologies on how to get to the question of the root causes of severe criminal behaviour, we owe an obligation to Canadians to mete out important, significant and fundamental justice to those who commit serious crimes against ordinary honest victims who happen to be our constituents.

I do not believe I should shirk or cower from the notion that the House must consider the bill in a much more serious manner. There was an overwhelming desire to ram through Bill C-33 in record time. It took nine days. It took us longer to join the second world war in the fight against the Nazis than it did to get that bill through the House of Commons. Perhaps a bit of levity today might allow us to reconfirm the importance of the bill.

I seek unanimous consent of the House, notwithstanding the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, to have it made a votable item.

[Criminal Code, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear any objection to the unanimous consent.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few very short questions. I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Nova Scotia who just spoke.

I think that her comments and the way she came to the conclusion that she should not support this bill reflect very well the concerns most Canadians have.

The recognition that the bill has only had 10 days to be deliberated on, the recognition that there seems to be day in, day out new evidence which demonstrates the bill is more than simply an honourable question of removing discrimination begs the question that the legislation may at some point open the door to something which very few members of Parliament would support.

Would the hon. member agree with the position taken by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops? Its members are puzzled by the justice minister's presentation at second reading that somehow the Catholic church supports the bill.

Could she comment on the statement that they are generally concerned that a major redefinition of spouse and marital status may result from an otherwise worthy initiative aimed at protecting individuals who have historically suffered unjust discrimination?

If there is to be such a massive social reconfiguration and change in public policy, it should happen only after widespread and meaningful consultation.

Will the hon. member respond to what the bishops have had to say about this matter?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat tragic that members of Parliament, even within their own party are sometimes not able to express themselves on matters and amendments they bring before this House of Commons which are not only represented by their own conscience but I am sure by the wishes and intentions of constituents. I found it unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg St. James did not permit the member for Scarborough West to do that. However, under the circumstances I fully understand.

I was elected to this House of Commons after some 20 years as a member of the Liberal Party. I have worked very hard to help the likes of the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, as well as my colleague the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and provincially individuals like Alvin Curling. I believed the Liberal Party represented the most important aspect of Canadian life, the freedom of speech.

Regrettably, this bill does more to divide members and certainly confuse constituents because it was not clearly articulated in the last election. Speaking to the motions by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth, I find it important that members of Parliament have an opportunity to articulate matters which are a fundamental concern to all Canadians. The reason for this is very simple.

In the last election we did not campaign on Bill C-33. Nowhere in the red book will be found any discussion about the desire by the government to move to in some way uphold, protect or remove a certain discrimination which probably exists but exists right across the political spectrum and is not exclusive simply to gays and lesbians. Bill C-33 was not mentioned in the throne speech although there are some who are concerned and seem to make the argument that it was.

As we speak many people in Canada are waking up this morning only to find to their shock and dismay that we have undertaken a bill which if not checked, if not amended, will radically transform the definition of family as we understand it. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer. I am quoting what he said in the Mossop case, it is not obiter dictum: "If Parliament had decided to include sexual orientation in a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, my interpretation of the phrase family status might have been entirely different".

It is very clear what the court is prepared to do once this House gives in a very limited way its approval to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, at least in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Unlike what we have seen in the provinces, such as the province of Ontario where I come from and which my riding is named after, in 1986 the government amended its Ontario human rights provision. Nine years later there was a motion before that same legislature to deal with the question of same sex benefits which radically altered the definition of family for the purposes of Ontario's laws.

That step from 1986 to 1994 was not coincidental. Even though the House at the time rejected it on a free vote, it is interesting to

note that certain justices in the court of Ontario had taken great liberties with what took place in 1986.

Last year many Ontarians were somewhat shocked to find out that a justice had decided that in certain instances adoptions are acceptable. Whether or not that constitutes in rem a question of discrimination is one thing. Clearly Parliament has an obligation to raise this in the eyes of the public. If we are not prepared to do that, I think we fail in our responsibility as representatives.

That the bill is going through the House at record speed is of grave concern not simply for this member of Parliament but for the 230,000 constituents I represent.

Although Group No. 1 talks to many substantive and important motions, my concern as a member remains let us not use the bill as a Trojan Horse to implement same sex benefits or to in some way assail, undermine or redefine or socially reinvent the term family.

There are some things which are based on political correctness, but 10,000 years of tradition cannot be defied. I therefore ask that these motions be duly considered for support.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague for Simcoe North.

I was very interested to hear what the hon. member had to say about the rather unusual turn of events by which this act has suddenly become the most pressing issue in the land today. This is certainly a pressing issue in the hon. member's riding, as it was in 1993, which is one of the reasons that we as a party did not put it in the red book.

There seems to be some confusion in the House and across the country as to the human rights act applying only to the provision of goods and services. Would the hon. member not agree that the CPP, spousal benefits, child tax credits, employment equity and the Divorce Act could be technically ruled on not by the House but by the Supreme Court of Canada or, even better, by Mr. Max Yalden, the commissioner of human rights? Would he agree that at some point down the road these items could well be included under this act?

The hon. member raised a couple of constitutional issues which were brought before the Supreme Court, one of them being the Mossop case. The court held that once Parliament passed a bill dealing with sexual orientation it would affect same sex marriages. Could the hon. member comment on that.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the courage the member for Huron-Bruce has demonstrated. It is ironic that the hon. member happens to speak to such a wide diversity of truth within Canada.

It is being seen that this piece of legislation has the support of almost every Canadian because no Canadian wants discrimination and our laws protect everybody. However, does the hon. member believe the House is not being served properly when we try to ram through a bill via a motion to limit debate?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear my hon. colleague and friend who also represents a very heavy urban riding in the Toronto region.

I want to find out if the member could substantiate for this House some of the rather erroneous information that has been given or may very well be given in the short time obviously that has been allotted to an issue which the Minister of Justice believes is 100 per cent supported by most Canadians, in that some members are propagating the myth that the Catholic Conference of Canadian Bishops somehow supports this legislation.

I would also like, if possible, for the member to comment on Max Yalden's remarks when he said that any time this House passes sexual orientation in a bill, he will immediately find grounds to change all the laws in Canada to reflect same sex benefits.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting with the government on this amendment.

[National Organ Donor Day Act, April 19th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-202, an act respecting a National Organ Donor Day in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is ant honour for me to rise today to launch the debate-which I hope will be positive-that will among other things improve the health and future of many people from

coast to coast, whether they live in Quebec, Ontario, western Canada or the maritimes.

Bill C-202 would designate a national day to recognize the importance of organ donation.

My desire to put forward this private member's bill came as a result of a very real, very human event that took place in my riding on April 21, 1994.

A young boy by the name of Stuart Harriott of Whitby, Ontario was unfortunately involved in an accident with a vehicle. As the young boy was in the last days and hours of life, his parents, his aunt and other relatives tried to determine how best to resolve their terrible grief. The doctors had told them that the young boy would eventually pass away and he did succumb to his injuries.

Rather than seeing this tragedy for what it was, Linda Rumble and Stuart Harriott's parents decided that they would begin a campaign to initiate something that would provide, if there ever is one in this world, a silver lining to such a tragic event.

At their insistence and the insistence of many organizations I have had the privilege of speaking to over the past year, we have before us today an opportunity as Parliament to discuss and perhaps approve an action Parliament recognizes on a given day, April 21, the importance and significance that in giving of one's life we may also give life to others.

The bill is about public education and awareness. Every year in Canada from coast to coast, 2,500 people need the gift of life. However, only 300 transplants on average are given. This leaves a tremendous shortfall.

While many organizations, from the Kidney Foundation to the Multiple Organ Retrieval Exchange Group, the Canadian Association of Transplant Patients, the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Canadian Liver Foundation, the Heart and Stroke and Lung Association, to the Canadian Medical Association and many others work to raise the awareness of Canadians of the need to sign their donor cards, many may do not enjoy the benefits and continue to suffer.

The House of Commons has an opportunity to put aside the traditional debate and often divisiveness that exists and provide for once an opportunity to allow people who are suffering today the hope that perhaps down the road they will be able to receive one, two or several organs. Some of these young children who received the gift of life from Stuart Herriott will also be able to enjoy their future.

Perhaps this is more important because it is not just that it affects and sounds like it is one of those motherhood issues. I think each of us in the House knows of constituents and families afflicted and affected by a debilitating disease or by accidents or by trauma.

I was very surprised to learn that one of our former clerks who worked on many committees for years, a well known individual, G.A. Sandy Birch, is a recipient of a heart. I a saw him recently at a function held in Ottawa where 35 other individuals had been given the gift of life, many of them with our colleague in the other place presiding at the transplant, the hon. Dr. Keon.

I was quite impressed to see how important and how close to home such examples of transplants can be in our own neighbourhoods.

I believe the public awareness and education programs such a bill would bring about would address very firmly some of the misapprehensions individuals have about transplants. Some will be concerned from a religious point of view, and I will address that.

Much of this is based on what some would consider simply confusion or ignorance surrounding the religious impact on the issue of organ donation. It may surprise many colleagues to learn that virtually every major religion in the world permits, and some actually encourage, organ donation and transplants.

Hindus are not prohibited by religious law from donating organs. Muslims support organ transplants and donations as long as they are done with respect for the deceased and for the benefit of the recipient. Judaism teaches that saving a human life takes precedence over maintaining the sanctity of the human body in terms of organ donation. Direct transplantation is therefore preferred.

In Christianity, Protestants respect individual conscience and an person's right to make decisions about their body and that resurrection does not require making the physical body whole again. Catholics view organ donation as an act of charity, fraternal love and self-sacrifice.

Some are also equally concerned about the question of safety. The importance of ensuring the safety of organ transplantation is of paramount and absolute concern. Research is being conducted examining the issue of reducing the risk of a recipient's contracting diseases such as hepatitis B and C and HIV from transplants.

In October 1995 the national consensus conference on the safety of organs and tissues for transplantation brought together a broad range of experts in the field of transplantation. The conference was successful in achieving a consensus on accepting in principle a Canadian general standard on safety of organs and tissues for transplantation. At the same time a risk management regulatory framework was proposed.

I am confident that more attention and study will be given to the issue of improving the safety of organ transplants.

In the intervening period since I introduced this bill under a different name in the previous session I have received a lot of correspondence from members of Parliament from across this great land.

Support for Linda Rumble and her initiatives have been received from many members, including the members for Saint John, Peterborough, Winnipeg North, London East, Vancouver Centre and Saskatoon-Humboldt.

Mr. Speaker, while we agree to the need for a day when we can pay respect to the individuals who have given life, perhaps some time down the road your good Chair and office might permit an honour role to recognize every year those who in laying down their lives have actually provided hope for many others.

It is my belief this bill does what other organizations cannot do individually. They cannot draw the attention of all Canadian people to sign their donor cards and to address the inhibitions of organ donation, for it is not something which should be done with trepidation, but with honour. When we pass on from this great planet, it is my belief there are opportunities for us to know that some of us will live in the lives of others.

I was also touched by some of the more immediate examples of what organ donation has done for many people, even among families. Glenn DeMille is a well know heart transplant recipient who helped to organize many events in the Ottawa region to draw attention to, at least from a local perspective, the need for organ donation.

Mr. DeMille received a heart transplant several years ago. However, most people do not know it is his son's heart which lives within him. Glenn DeMille did not know his son had signed a donor card. After his operation he was informed of the transplant. Mr. DeMille smiles because he feels like and has the energy of a 25-year old. Mr. DeMille will continue to be a driving force locally.

Perhaps we need a national force in which the division which often appears in the House of Commons and in committees is put aside for one day and parties will actually say there are some issues which transcend partisan considerations.

I am submitting today that Parliament can do what individual organizations cannot do. While it is true some groups and organizations designate weeks in which they recognize specific causes on a regional, local or provincial basis, we have never been able to pinpoint a specific day. In my view it should be April 21.

I ask this House to give my bill serious consideration and to support its implementation so that present and future generations can receive the gift of life.

[Competition Act, April 18th, 1996]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague moved a similar motion to mine before I had an opportunity to present this bill.

The bill amends the Competition Act to require oil companies to give 30-days' notice of any increase in the price at which they sell gasoline to gasoline retail distributors if the increase is more than 1 per cent.

Such notice is to be given to the minister responsible for enforcing the act and shall include the effective date of the price increase and the reason or reasons for it.

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