House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 50% of the vote.
The Canadian Grand Prix September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is expressing a desire to save the Grand Prix, while at the same time rejecting any amendment to the Tobacco Act—with which we agree—but also rejecting the idea of an interim fund.
If the Prime Minister rejects both of these solutions, can he tell us what other strategy he has in mind for saving the Grand Prix?
The Canadian Grand Prix September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the federal government—
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from the NDP and my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.
I have a fundamental problem with the speeches from the members opposite. I am glad the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier pointed out that we are not talking about religious marriage here. The draft legislation tabled by the member for Outremont and Minister of Justice is clear on this.
If relationships between two people of the same sex are not to be recognized, then I would like the member to tell me how they should be described. It would be like a father telling his daughter that he is not racist, but he does not want her to marry a black man, or a husband telling is wife that he is for equal rights, but he does not want her to have the right to work.
Does our colleague not think that at some point we should practice what we preach? If we believe in equality there should be no exception.
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, six times since 1993, the Canadian Alliance has voted against the rights of homosexuals. It seems to me that the leader of the Canadian Alliance should be clear about one thing. He does not believe that persons of a homosexual orientation can constitute families; he does not believe that individual homosexual people, including myself, can get married.
I ask the leader of the Canadian Alliance this question: why does he not believe that two men or two women can be inspired by the same loving feelings as a man and a woman? Does he realize that, since 1993 and right up to now, the Canadian Alliance has demonstrated a homophobic feeling that is unworthy of a party leader?
Montreal Grand Prix September 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the government did not hesitate to shamelessly squander tens of millions of dollars in the sponsorship scandal.
Given how important the Grand Prix is, did the government consider setting up a transitional fund for a maximum of two years to allow this event to take place and bring Canadian regulations in line with those in force in the European Union?
Montreal Grand Prix September 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Grand Prix is at risk, and the difficulty in finding a middle ground is making it increasingly unlikely that this event will be held in 2004.
What does the government intend to do, short of amending the Tobacco Act, to keep the Grand Prix, an event which generates an estimated $80 million in economic and tourist benefits, in Montreal?
Criminal Code June 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-250 on this fine sunny Friday afternoon, and I would like to congratulate the member for Burnaby—Douglas on his admirable persistence.
I do not agree with the comments made by the previous speaker about the member for Burnaby—Douglas. We all know that the latter is an enlightened person who believes in freedom of expression and he has demonstrated this on numerous occasions.
When this bill was studied in committee, I was extremely surprised, as a Quebecker, to see a number of arguments raised by other members of the House that seemed in many respects far-fetched. However, I would like to agree with my colleague, the member for Provencher, on one point.
In order to understand the bill introduced by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, one has to have read the Supreme Court decision in the Keegstra case, which was rendered in 1990. It is interesting, because in reading this decision, it becomes clear just how sensitive the issue of hate propaganda really is, and also how deeply rooted this issue is in Quebec law.
Former minister Guy Favreau, whose name has become famous because of a building named after him near the Place des Arts in Montreal—but people may be surprised to learn that he was also a former Minister of Justice—established a working group that presented a report in 1966. This was the first group to consider the whole issue of hate propaganda. In fact, in the 1960s and 1970s, certain neo-Nazi groups or groups that had questionable views on freedom of expression posed a threat to national security.
When this working group was struck, it contained such well-known people as the Rev. Gérard Dion, professor Shane MacKay of the University of Toronto, the father of the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and also the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This working group released its report in 1966 in which it recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to make a clear reference to fomenting trouble to disrupt law and order and threaten public order. It also contained a recommendation regarding genocide.
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is putting before us today a bill to amend the Criminal Code by adding sexual orientation to subsection 381(4).
Just to make it clear, our colleague's bill concerns hate propaganda and amends section 318(4) of the Criminal Code to include sexual orientation in the definition of identifiable group.
At present, in the Criminal Code, identifiable group includes people who are distinguished—that is, groups that are currently part of Canadian society—by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin, and the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is proposing to add sexual orientation.
The first question we must ask ourselves, as lawmakers, is: do we believe that, in Canadian society, there are individuals who might be subject to hate propaganda on the basis of distinguishing characteristics such as sexual orientation, colour, race, as I just mentioned? Anyone who answers yes to this question obviously has no reason not to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
I was pretty amazed, however, when in committee, they would have had us believe—I must say this was a campaign led mainly by the Canadian Alliance with some of our Liberal colleagues—that if, as lawmakers, we voted in favour of this amendment to subsection 381(4) of the Criminal Code, thereby recognizing that there are groups in Canadian society who may be subject to hate propaganda because they can be distinguished by their race, colour or sexual orientation—if we agree to add it—this would somehow jeopardize freedom of religious expression.
I hope that there is not, in any of the religious writings one might have faith in, whether one is Catholic, Muslim or any other religious denomination, anything that would make us comfortable with the fact that it might be used for purposes of incitement to hate propaganda. I hope that no member of this House will put freedom of religion on the same footing as using that freedom for purposes of hate propaganda. Hate propaganda, whatever its motives, means or examples, is unacceptable.
What surprised me was the lack of rigour. I was even more surprised because the hon. member for Provencher is a former crown attorney. Thus, he is someone who knows the law, who has pleaded cases and who has given instructions for prosecutions.
Canada has no state religion. In the Canadian Constitution and the charter of 1982, there is no state religion. A person cannot say that because he or she is Christian, Muslim, Catholic or Hindu, it is right for his or her world view—since religion is a world view—or one of the many other religious beliefs to receive more weight in the legislative texts than any other.
Now, freedom of religious expression is a guidepost. A long time ago, the Supreme Court made several rulings to define freedom of religious expression. Obviously, no one can prevent people from quoting the Bible, the Koran or any other religious work. That is not the objective of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
I would like to quote from what is undoubtedly the most important Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom. I am speaking of Regina v. Big M Drugmart, a case all first-year law students study. This decision defines freedom of religion. The definition of freedom of religion therein does not withstand the Alliance's arguments. It says:
Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person.
It continues by defining the human person. It talks of freedom—and this is the most important part:
Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.
That is how the courts defined freedom of religion; in other words, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.
Please explain the link between recognizing that people who are homosexual can be subject to hate propaganda and that they should be protected as a group under the Criminal Code, and the right to religion, as it was defined by the Supreme Court a decade ago.
That is where the Canadian Alliance gets completely carried away. They would have us believe that if members of this House granted additional protection to homosexuals by making them an identified group, as is the case in the Criminal Code, then people who quote the Bible, the Koran or any other religious text would feel that their rights have been eroded.
I respectfully submit that the member for Provencher's argument is intellectually dishonest. What he is trying to do is deny that there are people who are homosexual.
Canadian Alliance members have voted against conferring rights on homosexuals at every opportunity in this House. It would have been much more honest for the member of Provencher to stand up and call a spade a spade. That is his true intention.
Points of Order June 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a problem. We are here for private members' business and you are the guardian of our privileges. We have one hour for a private member's bill. Our colleague can be for or against, We all want to discuss amendments, but here we have a strategy to prevent debate and prevent us from hearing the amendments.
I would like to see you exercise some vigilance over our prerogatives. At this point in the day, we are supposed to be discussing private members' business. We want to hear the amendments. We want to discuss their substance, and I believe that process needs to be begun, in accordance with the schedule for our day.
I submit that our rights have been violated in that we cannot get on with what we are supposed to be doing at this point in the day, which is examining Bill C-250 and its amendments.
Health June 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health of the member states of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, APEC, will hold a meeting on SARS in Bangkok, Thailand. The purpose of this meeting, set for the end of June, is to coordinate the efforts of member states in containing the SARS epidemic.
Has the Minister of Health been invited to this meeting, and if so, will she attend?
First Nations Governance Act June 3rd, 2003
Rude, indeed. Even cavalier, and I believe this is parliamentary language. Sadly, this is what we were faced with.
When we vote on this bill, and we will give it all our energy, there will be no hope, no energy, no cooperation strong enough to get all opposition parties to delay the passage of the bill. This is a commitment we make today before first nations. We will use all parliamentary means, with dignity and respect for our institution, but we will delay the passage of the bill as long as possible.
If, through the most strange misfortune, this bill were passed, imagine in what situation we would find ourselves. We have received letters from first nations leaders saying that the opposition to the bill was not a superficial or a knee-jerk opposition, but rather an opposition rooted in all first nations communities.
If members were to pass a bill which is not wanted by first nations, imagine in what situation we would place ourselves as parliamentarians first of all, but also what this would bring about in the future. This is the lack of understanding we are faced with.
How could Liberal members be so insensitive? Last night, in the parliamentary dining room—this is a place where I can be found occasionally—I happened to run into the former member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, whom I can name, Mr. Warren Allmand. This former solicitor general of Canada and enlightened mind has worked at the democratic rights centre. He is a Liberal progressive, in the noble tradition of the word “liberal”, and there are a few of them in the Liberal Party, although their numbers are dwindling. Warren Allmand was telling us that he found it incredible that this government would go ahead with such a bill.
We can certainly not say that Warren Allmand is keen on sovereignty-association. He does not have his Bloc Quebecois membership card and he does not hobnob with sovereignists.
The well-informed sections of Quebec society and Canadian society all reject this bill. Hence, when a man like Warren Allmand, a progressive man who believes in the Liberal Party and who has given the best years of his life to the Canadian Parliament, urges the members to vote against this bill, we cannot help but listen to him.
It is sad. What will happen is sad. We will be using every parliamentary means to ensure that this bill is not adopted promptly and diligently. However, we must warn the government. If it decides to use its stubborn and empty-headed majority to impose an unwanted policy by the sheer weight of its numbers, I can tell you that the consequences of such an action will be felt in all communities and that the Liberals will pay for it. The aboriginal communities will see to it that their dignity is respected.
How many Liberals are there now in the Liberal Party caucus? There are 178 or 179 members. There are 178 members, I was right the first time. This, Madam Speaker, reminds us of the movie The Silence of the Lambs . I do not know if you have seen it, and I do not want to comment, particularly since the Liberal caucus wavers between The Silence of the Lambs and Les Invasions barbares . However, I cannot imagine that they will not show a shred of conscience and of vigilance, if only out of respect for what the Liberal Party was a few years ago, and that they will not try to get the bill defeated.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot made a proposal in the parliamentary committee, inviting all colleagues, all those wishing to work in good faith, of whom there are many of all political stripes, to reject the bill. We are going to go the Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources Committee and bring to life the Erasmus-Dussault report. That is what the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot proposed, and we must hope his voice is heeded. The worst thing that could happen is for the bill to be passed, for the minister to proceed in an authoritarian, bitter, headstrong and obtuse manner. This will surely lead to catastrophe. If this is what the minister does, it will lead to catastrophe and we cannot imagine that it would not stir up a lot of opinions.
My friend across the way—not the one directly across, where the Conservative contingent such as it is is placed, but his neighbour to the left—might do this out of friendship for John Turner. That might be one motivation.
The subject is too important for us to allow it to be passed as it is. Why must this bill be rejected? It must be rejected because it is not a nation-to-nation agreement; there is not a relationship of equality. It is a relationship in which the central government wants to call the shots and still supervise the first nations.
Recent years have seen a lot of history made. I remember the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development apologizing in this House for the harm done to the first nations. One might have expected a ministerial apology to be followed with some measures of reparation.
We are deeply saddened, but we still have a lot of energy. Once again, we are not going to let this get us down.
This is such a serious matter that I would ask you Madam Speaker, if there is unanimous consent for me to speak for another ten minutes. This is a matter of such importance.