Debates of March 24th, 2005

Housing

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member for Brampton--Springdale has the floor.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition would have cared to listen, Canadians are also interested in a whole range of other issues that actually affect their lives. One of those issues is housing.

The delivery of affordable housing has been slow in some of the provinces and territories and many Canadians are having difficulty in accessing a place that is safe and affordable.

Could the Minister of Labour and Housing tell us what he is doing to address this critical issue?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the member, our caucus and the cabinet for making housing a priority in this country.

Yesterday we announced that rent supplement agreements will now be part of the affordable housing initiative. This will allow provinces and municipalities to get on with helping those people find vacant units in cities and so on. We are determined to house Canadians. We are determined to help those most in need in society as opposed to that party over there that could care less.

We will do more for Quebec and the other provinces.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, imagine, the Liberals are now blaming us for their corruption.

A constituent in my riding of Cambridge was required to send personal documents, including her social insurance number, to get a copy of her immigration records. When she got her package back, it contained the records of someone else. In an age of identity theft and terrorism, she is concerned that her private information has fallen into the wrong hands due to the bungling of the government.

How many innocent Canadians has the minister exposed to identity theft because of--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concern of the hon. member and it is a reasonable one.

In the large system that we have each year with the number of immigrants and refugees who are processed, it is not unusual to have one or two pieces of human error occur.

As the member well knows, the department has taken a great deal of care on questions in the House to keep the privacy and confidentiality of its clients safe. The House has often tried to get that information from us and we have not provided it.

We are sorry about the human error. We will make an--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has spent $125 million on a flawed ADR process that has brought neither closure nor meaningful compensation to residential school survivors.

Today the aboriginal affairs standing committee passed a report recommending the dismantling of this flawed process and the establishment of a fair and comprehensive settlement.

Will the government now admit its own program has been a disaster and move to implement a new court approved settlement process, yes or no?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of dismantling the ADR process. What we do have an intention of doing is what we are doing. We are working with the AFN and its recommendations and talking to other interested parties in this matter. What we want is a process that is fair to everybody and is effective for everybody. That is what we are working on. That is what we are going to deliver.

National Defence

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, the Minister of National Defence and two other federal ministers took a trip to announce a $10 million investment in the Goose Bay military base. Yet the base at Bagotville, in the Saguenay, is in a terrible state and greatly in need of improvements.

Does the Minister of National Defence intend to go to Bagotville in the near future in order to announce investments that would confirm that the base is also of concern to him and that he intends to maintain it, thereby putting an end to all the rumours of reduced activities—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have already assured the hon. member and the House that it is, obviously, a concern of the Canadian Forces to have as efficient an organization as possible. No decision about Bagotville—the organization of Bagotville—has been reached that would threaten the number of jobs there in any way.

I hope that the hon. member will not call into question our activities in other parts of the country, where investments are necessary in order to ensure the protection and security of Canadians.

Agriculture

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The question is regarding the Farm Income and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act program which has had declining registration rates over the last decade. That being said, could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House what plans there are for this program, and what effect it might have on loans that are currently registered?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, providing access to capital to our producers is indeed important. As the member mentioned, the FIMCLA program has seen a decline in its use. It is really important over the coming months that, working with producers, we design a new, modern program that will allow for increased access to capital. In the meantime, the Government of Canada will continue to accept loans under the FIMCLA program. Of course, all guarantees will remain in force for the term of the loan.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Carolyn Parrish, Independent, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my years as parliamentary secretary I was called upon to answer questions in question period. I was repeatedly cautioned it was question period, not answer period. This advice appears to be holding true with the current administration.

Again I would like to ask the Minister of Finance on behalf of the immigrants and taxpayers of Ontario if he will commit to undertake a study of the actual settlement needs and costs for immigrants coming to Canada, regardless of the province in which they choose to live.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the former minister of immigration and the minister of immigration before that, indeed the discussion is already under way. That led to the first step which was taken in the budget a number of days ago, and that is $300 million to increase the resources available for immigration settlement across the country. A very significant portion of that will flow to Ontario because that is where the majority of immigrants go. Obviously in the future we have very much in mind accelerating our rate of investment in immigration settlement.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, today we will rise for the Easter break to allow members of Parliament the opportunity to return to their ridings. Certainly we are interested in knowing what the government has planned for business the following week, the week of April 4 to 8.

Specifically, yesterday we debated report stage of Bill C-30 which deals with the MPs' compensation. I have been asking for some four months for the government to bring forward its legislation dealing with the judges' remuneration. I wonder when we can expect that particular piece of legislation from the government.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, which is the civil marriage bill. We will resume this debate when we return from the Easter adjournment.

We will also want to deal that week with third reading of Bill C-30, which is the parliamentarians' compensation bill, to which my hon. colleague was referring. The Judges Act will certainly come forward in the fullness of time.

We will also return to Bills C-23 and C-22, the human resources and social development departmental legislation.

We also that week hope to debate report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services bill, and Bill C-9, the Quebec economic development bill.

Thursday, April 7, shall be an allotted day.

I know that the House is also very eager to begin debate on the budget implementation bill that was introduced earlier today. However, in keeping with commitments made to the opposition members to give them adequate time to study and discuss in caucus this new legislation, I will call second reading debate on that bill early in the week of April 11.

While I am on my feet, I would like to wish a very happy Easter to all members in the House and officers of the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act, that proposes to legalize same sex marriages in Canada.

I believe there are defining moments in the life of a Parliament and the lives of members of Parliament, moments that help define who we are and who we want to be as a country, what we believe and what we will stand up for. I believe this legislation is one of those moments.

I, along with my party, will support the bill. This is not a decision I take lightly nor is it an easy one. I welcome the debate in the House and in our country. I welcome the participation of religious leaders. There are people of goodwill and strong faith conviction on both sides.

My own Catholic bishops have invited all married Catholics to participate in this debate. I welcome that invitation. I myself am celebrating the 22nd anniversary of my marriage this year. I want to go on record with three essential statements about my position.

First, it has been said by some in my own community and elsewhere that my position contradicts my Catholic faith, when in fact my faith very much shapes and determines my support for the legislation, and I want to say something about that.

Second, I also want to be clear, contrary to the statements of some in my riding that I am not listening to my constituents, I am here today speaking for constituents in my riding. It may not be all of them. It may not in fact be a majority, but they are my constituents and I want to give voice to their words too.

I believe that the demands of justice and human rights are ultimately the deciding factor in my discernment. However, I assure the people of Sault Ste. Marie that I listen very carefully to all my constituents.

Third, I hope by contributing here and elsewhere to a respectful dialogue on this issue together we can make happen here what did not happen with similar legislation in the Ontario legislature when I served as a member. It was about 10 years ago on a fateful day where I saw the betrayal of a group of people from the gay and lesbian community looking for affirmation of their rights and equality before the law. That did not happen then. I can never forget how destructive that was for them, how wrong it was for that legislature at that time and how upset I felt. This Parliament has to lead and not let the courts do our work for us.

I recognize we are not going to satisfy everyone. When I think back to where public opinion, laws and mindsets were as little as 10 years ago, we have come a long way.

In some media stories, reporting my position on the bill, it has been stated that I would be voting in favour despite my personal Roman Catholic beliefs. I believe same sex marriage for civil society is a justice issue, but I want it clarified that I believe this is so because of my personal Roman Catholic convictions, not in spite of them.

I have not dissociated myself from the church. I cannot because it is that same church, whose leadership disagrees with me today, that inspires me to say this. It is the right thing to do. It was the spirit of Vatican II that challenged me to inform my conscience and that informed conscience says that we must reach out to Bill, Scott, Libby and Réal and all members of the gay and lesbian community and say that they are as whole and as wholesome as all humanity and worthy of all the gifts life has to offer, particularly the gift to love and to be loved and to be creators and co-creators of life in all its forms. They know this already. Their communities know this. It is time that the law proclaims this reality.

I respect my church. I respect it and I love it enough to be able to tell its leaders when I think they are wrong. I know there are other good and faithful Catholics who think the same. I have done everything asked of me by my faith in giving great weight to its teaching, reflected on my lived experience, prayed and thus informed my conscience. I believe, as my church expects, that I am being morally coherent and not separating my spiritual life and my political life.

It has been important for me to recognize the balance in the legislation that upholds human rights for same sex couples and that pays great attention to the principle of religious freedom. We must do everything to work with the provincial authorities responsible for marriages to enshrine and protect this principle of religious freedom. I believe we have ensured that we will not have our churches dictating their views on marriage to the rest of the community and that community not interfering with the teaching, beliefs and practices of our religious communities.

Recently a Sault senior citizen asked me if I meant that the bill changed nothing about what the church could teach, believe or practise. I assured him that this was the case.

This issue is not about me. The most powerful moment in my almost 15 years at Queen's Park was when the government, of which I was part, brought forward a bill to extend benefits to gay and lesbian couples. I remember the sense of betrayal that day in the legislature when that bill did not pass. The gay, lesbian and bisexual community believed that they had rights, that they belonged. How disappointing for them. I do not ever again want to experience another day in Parliament like that day.

I believe we all have grown in our understanding of people who are perhaps different from ourselves in all kinds of ways. That is a hallmark of the tolerance that characterizes Canadians and Canada. We are not finished with this journey toward tolerance. We hope that we and our children move from labels, hateful language or stereotyping to putting names and positive experiences on people different but equal to ourselves.

The media in my home town has been filled with many legitimate views opposed to my position, but there are others. I heard from a young man from my riding named Andy who wrote:

So please, help me to grow my future family. You are the person that will dictate whether or not this will happen...Think of the love that you will be granting to the thousands of people who only ask to be normal like others and to be left alone.

I heard from parents of a gay son and a lesbian daughter, happy that their gay children might be on an equal footing with their heterosexual brothers or sisters. They do not want the orientation of either to bar their children from normal occupations, promotions or pensions.

Some believe a compromise on this contentious issue might be a civil union option for same sex couples. The Leader of the Opposition, with others, offers something sort of like marriage, except that it would not be marriage, no symbolism, no tradition, no social stamp of approval and acceptance. Courts have dismissed the separate but equal argument.

The question is this. What is the right thing to do in 2005 for human rights and for our society? How do we do this well, to move people and society along and not polarize one another? I see the progress people have made in their thinking on this in the past 10 years and I do not want it lost. I believe that access to civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples will add to the stability of Canadian families and Canadian society.

This is a world that needs more people who are willing to make loving, lifelong commitments to each other and who are willing to take full responsibility for their relationships. In a matter for all society, the Charter of Rights does matter. We cannot have two classes of people.

Business of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to today's sitting, and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

Notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, government orders shall end today at 4:30 p.m., immediately followed by private members' business. At the conclusion of private members' business today, the House shall begin adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-38, an act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.