Svend Robinson

[Supply, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus to strongly support the motion which has been put forward in the House today by my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to congratulate the members of the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forward this important motion.

September 11 was a day of unbelievable tragedy and anguish as we saw over 6,000 people die in the crimes against humanity involved in the terrorist attacks on New York, on Washington and in Pennsylvania. We in the New Democratic Party continue to mourn the tragic loss of those victims, to pay tribute to the people involved in the rescue effort and of course to do everything we can to bring to justice the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity.

As well, September 11 was a day on which 30,000 children around this planet died of preventable disease and hunger. UNICEF has reminded us that each and every day on this planet 30,000 children are dying of preventable disease and hunger, on September 11, on September 12, on September 13 and on every single day since then. There is no CNN, no publicity, but there is death, despair, famine and hopelessness. Five thousand children died in Iraq last month because of the impact of sanctions on that country.

Today we, along with the Bloc Quebecois, are calling upon the government to increase significantly the level of Canada's commitment to international aid. Certainly when we look at the current levels of aid, Canada's performance has been nothing short of shameful. Not that many years ago when the Liberals first took office in 1993, Canada was number 5 or 6 among the 22 nations of the OECD. By 1999, after years of savage cuts by the Liberals, we had dropped to number 12. Last year we were number 17 out of 22 countries in the OECD.

As Roy Culpeper, the president of the North-South Institute, said very clearly just this month in a document he submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance for the prebudget consultations:

Mr. Chairman, I will reiterate my remarks to (the Minister for International Cooperation) at her consultations last week on CIDA's new directions. I said to her that Canada should be ashamed of this abysmal performance. Certainly, if they were still alive and with us today, prime ministers Pearson and Trudeau would both be astonished and terribly disappointed at the state of affairs.

Our commitment as Canadians should be to meet the target of 0.7% for the ODA/GNP ratio, which was established, by the way, by Prime Minister Pearson. In order to meet that we should be working to get to the halfway mark of 0.35% within the next five years. The parliamentary secretary has said that they are increasing the level of aid and there will be more coming, but the fact of the matter is that the Canadian Council for International Cooperation has made it very clear that if we are to meet that target of 0.35%, which is after all only halfway to the goal we have committed ourselves to, it will require an annual increase of $400 million in each of the next five years.

That is what we are calling for as a minimum in order to get us on the road to meeting those commitments. Other countries can and have done far better, as others have pointed out. The Scandinavian countries, for example, Sweden, Norway and Denmark along with the Netherlands, have all consistently exceeded the UN target of 0.7% of GNP: Sweden at 0.7%, Norway at 0.91%, Denmark at 1% and the Netherlands at 0.8%.

Until recently we were actually falling further and further behind every year. If it was imperative that we increase our aid before September 11, it is even more so today.

As has been pointed out by the World Bank recently, we risk a dramatic increase in the level of poverty in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. These terrorist attacks will hurt economic growth in developing countries worldwide this year and next year. As many as 10 million more people will be condemned to live in poverty next year. It will hamper the fight against childhood diseases and malnutrition. This is all in a preliminary economic assessment that was released by the World Bank on October 1 this year. Even before September 11 the bank had predicted an economic slowdown, that growth in developing countries would fall as a result of slowdowns in the United States, Japan and Europe.

We know of course that the impact of September 11 on wealthier countries means that there will be a decline in their level of spending as well.

The worst hit area will be Africa where, in addition to the possible increases in poverty of two to three million people as a result of lower growth and incomes, a further two million people may be condemned to live on below a dollar a day due to the effects of falling commodity prices. The 300 million poor people in sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable because most countries there have absolutely no safety nets whatsoever. Poor households certainly do not have any savings to cushion bad times. Half the additional child deaths worldwide are likely to be in Africa. That is the area which has already been hardest hit by the epidemic of HIV-AIDS.

Again, in the aftermath of September 11 we must do far, far more. Gerry Barr on behalf of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation pointed out just this week that it is imperative that there be a significant increase in Canadian aid spending following the events of September 11. He points out that the shock waves of September 11 are likely to devastate the global south.

Foreign direct investment is down and is likely to go even lower. Export commodity prices, on which the economies of many developing countries depend, are anticipated to fall further. Recession in the markets of the developed world, including in Canada, means fewer sales for the developing world and declining revenues for them as well.

We are also very concerned that with the focus in the budget on security measures, international aid and other anti-poverty measures not be squeezed out as a result. We do not want to see Canada's aid spending become yet another casualty of the war on terrorism.

It would be a shame to see the Canadian aid budget fall victim to the war on terrorism. War, conflicts and emergency situations are threats to global security.

The end of hostilities must lead to the first steps towards peace. Peace will only be possible through development, the even distribution of resources and social agreements which, beyond the military action, allow the people to establish security for all those who live on this planet.

I would like to mention the constant efforts of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, who has worked relentlessly in favour of more justice, more fairness and a better distribution of wealth between rich countries and poor countries. Since the beginning, he has spoken about the terrible impact of co-operative globalization. I want to thank him for his work on this important issue, which led to this motion by the Bloc Quebecois.

The motion of my friends in the Bloc also speaks about the importance of increasing the level of Canada's humanitarian aid in Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is absolutely devastating. It is a humanitarian crisis. Already more than 20 years of war have devastated Afghanistan, destroyed its economy and displaced huge numbers of civilians, including children. Already before September 11 Afghanistan was facing its most severe drought in years. The situation is only going to continue to deteriorate.

Aid delivery is hampered due to this terrible political situation and, I might add, due to the bombing by the United States. We have seen that a number of bombs have already hit Red Cross warehouses. We have seen that too many innocent civilians are dying as a result of the bombing campaign. In a country which is already facing massive challenges of de-mining, one of the countries that already has more mines than anywhere else in the world, we have seen that shamefully, the United States is continuing to use cluster bombs in its bombing campaign.

Six million people are dependent on food and emergency aid already in Afghanistan. Chronic instability and conflict have already displaced much of the population. They are fleeing the terror of the Taliban regime but they are also fleeing from the bombing. With winter months approaching, children in particular are going to be susceptible to the harsh climate without the necessary provisions for warmth. This five million or six million people is the equivalent of the entire population of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that are fleeing as refugees. As Nadine Grant, the director of programs for Save the Children Canada, said recently, “The crisis looming in Afghanistan has the potential to become the worst humanitarian situation in the world”.

The Afghan people are already suffering the devastating effects of a three year drought. The emergency crisis for Afghani children is overwhelming. Three million Afghanis are already dependent on NGOs for food. It is estimated that an additional three million people will also need food assistance this winter. Two hundred and fifty-seven children out of every one thousand die before their fifth birthday. It is one of the worst levels of infant mortality in the world. There are currently 900,000 internally displaced people living in Afghanistan. There are approximately 50,000 children working in Kabul to support their families. In the north, as I mentioned earlier, there has been near total crop failure in 1999 and 2000. An estimated 10 million live mines are still buried in Afghanistan, placing children in most danger.

We join today in pleading with our government to do far more than it has already done to respond to this humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. So far, Canada's contribution has been approximately $16 million Canadian. Norway, a country of under five million people, has contributed over $80 million. Sweden has contributed over $60 million. The Netherlands has contributed over $50 million. We as Canadians can and should do far more.

It is also important that we recognize that in tackling global poverty it is not good enough simply to increase levels of aid. We have also to do far more to cancel the debts of the poorest countries of the world. In fact, the proposal of the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative to have the debt of the world's poorest countries cancelled has been one of the most important priorities for some time. Canada has not done nearly enough in this regard. We cancelled the debt of some of the poorest countries but we have not gone far enough.

This debt is a crushing burden on developing countries. It is the most obvious expression of their poverty. The indebtedness of the south condemns millions of people to lives of destitution. In fact the debt load of the heavily indebted poor countries is such that they have to use their meagre financial resources to make payments on their debts and they can no longer spend that money to meet the basic needs of their populations.

We join in calling for the objective of CIDA to be not just poverty reduction, but poverty eradication. It would not take a lot. In fact it has been estimated by the UN secretary general that some $40 billion worldwide would be what it would take to meet the needs of the world's poorest citizens.

Debt reduction and opening up the markets of developed countries to the products of the poorest countries is also essential, particularly agricultural products, textiles and clothing. These are the products that they depend upon for their survival, their economic self-sufficiency. Too often our doors are slammed shut. We could get rid of these tariff barriers at a minimal cost to Canadians but this would mean a huge difference in the lives of the poorest around this planet.

I would like to take a moment as well, because the WTO meeting in Doha is coming up, to appeal to our government to recognize that we have to be doing a lot more within the context of the trade agenda to respond to global poverty. Structural adjustment programs which have been forced on developing countries by the World Bank, the IMF and other international financial institutions has simply increased the gap between rich and poor in those countries. It has added to the level of poverty in those countries.

The WTO agenda and the agenda of the FTAA would exacerbate poverty and would drive more peasants and small farmers off their land. They simply cannot compete against the heavily subsidized agricultural products which are flooding their countries from wealthy countries like the United States and elsewhere.

We have to put poverty and its elimination front and centre on the global trade agenda. That means also that we have to look at the impact of TRIPS agreements. These are the agreements that give huge powers to multinational pharmaceutical companies.

I would hope that the Bloc, in addition to calling for an increase in the level of aid, would recognize that we have to stop pandering to the multinational pharmaceutical companies which are holding the poorest of the poor up to ransom for their patent rights. In South Africa, Brazil, India and elsewhere these pharmaceutical companies are demanding that they have the right to protect their patents even if it means additional tens of thousands of millions of lives lost in the fight against HIV-AIDS, malaria and other preventable diseases.

Canada should be playing a far more active role in speaking out against the current TRIPS agreement. Instead, the Minister for International Trade says that he supports that agreement.

There are many areas in which the battle against poverty can be fought. It can be fought within the context of trade deals and not moving ahead on a new round for the WTO. Developing countries have said they want to deal with some outstanding implementation issues of the existing WTO before we even consider moving ahead on new deals. It means challenging corporate powers within existing trade deals such as the powers given under chapter 11 of NAFTA which the government seems to want to extend throughout the hemisphere in the FTAA.

Nelson Mandela has said that security for a few is insecurity for all. Today, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, we want to support this motion.

We appeal to the government to significantly increase levels of aid to work toward meeting that target of 0.7% of GDP, to meeting the interim target of 0.35% within the next three to five years, making far more aid available immediately to meet the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, ending the destructive and illegal U.S. led bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and forgiving the debts of the poorest countries and restructuring global trading schemes to ensure that they put people, the environment and tackling poverty against corporate profit.

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the comment by the member for Elk Island who spoke about his relationship with his wife of over 40 years. He felt somehow that relationship was being demeaned by the fact that he designated her as his travelling companion. Let us be clear about why the House of Commons moved in that important area.

I would have loved it if the spouses, companions and partners of those of us who are gay and lesbian in the House were recognized equally. It is precisely because the House was not prepared to extend full and open recognition to our partners that we must designate a traveller. Why should my partner not be treated equally with respect to the rights to travel as the wife of the member for Elk Island? Why should it be any different at all?

With respect to the Liberal member who spoke just before the member for Elk Island, he suggested that the right of a child to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment was the most important issue. He said very clearly that gay and lesbian families were not in a position to do that as effectively as heterosexual families. That is simply false. A number of studies have indicated that children raised in loving gay or lesbian families are well adjusted. In fact those families are just as strong, nurturing and loving as heterosexual families.

It is insulting to gay and lesbian families and partners who are raising children to suggest that they are not just as able to raise kids in loving environments as heterosexual families.

I wish to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, who spoke on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, not only for his support of this bill, which recognizes the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, but also for his work for equality, for close to 20 years now I believe, within the labour movement and elsewhere.

As I have said, the hon. member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve has also done an excellent job.

I thank the member for St. Paul's for her support not only today but consistently for equality for gay and lesbian people, along with the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale who has also seconded the bill. I thank my colleague and friend from Vancouver East for her support and for her courage in speaking out so eloquently and so personally today on this important piece of legislation.

I hope that members of the House will recognize the right of equality. I wish to read from an affidavit that was submitted in the court proceedings for equal marriage rights by Lloyd Thornhill and Robert Peacock, who have been together for 32 years. Bob said:

I met my spouse, Lloyd Thornhill, in 1968. From the beginning, I believed that God destined us to be together. We have been together in a monogamous, loving relationship for the past 32 years. If we could have married years ago, we would have. We have always supported and relied on each other. When one of us is down, the other is always there to bring him back up. Years ago, we exchanged rings as a symbol of our love and commitment and have never taken them off, except on one occasion when we exchanged our initial set of rings for a new set. Being able to legally marry now would simply allow us to gain legal recognition of the reality of our relationship. Denying us the right to marry sends a message that our relationship is less deserving of recognition just because we are gay. I believe that Lloyd and I deserve to be able to legally marry, as heterosexual couples do, and to be recognized as a family unit.

Thirty-two years seems like an awfully long time to be engaged. I appeal to members of the House today to support the principle of the legislation for Lloyd and Bob, and for all the gay and lesbian couples across the country who want the right to equality and the right to make a choice.

I seek unanimous consent of the House to send the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where it can be studied, strengthened and hopefully passed by the House so that a clear signal could be sent indicating that gay and lesbian people are fully equal in Canadian society.

[Marriage Capacity Act, October 29th, 2001]

moved that Bill C-264, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act (marriage between persons of the same sex), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day for the gay and lesbian community in Canada. It is the first time in Canadian history that legislation is being debated that would allow gay or lesbian couples to legally marry in Canada.

I want to begin my comments this morning by thanking some of my colleagues in the House for supporting this landmark bill. I want to first thank my colleague, the member of parliament for Vancouver East, for seconding the bill and for her long history of support for equality for gay and lesbian people throughout Canada.

I also want to thank those members of the Liberal Party who supported the bill: the member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale, the member for St. Paul's and others. I hear some Liberal backbenchers heckling and indicating they do not support the bill. I would ask that they at least show respect for their own colleagues and for other members of the House. They may not accept equality but surely they can accept the right of members of the House to debate this important issue in an atmosphere of civility and dignity.

I would also like to thank the members of the Bloc Quebecois who supported this important bill and especially the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, who cannot participate in the debate this morning but who has, for a long time, been promoting justice and equality for gay and lesbian communities in Canada. I also thank the member for Joliette, who will participate in the debate and support the bill.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the member for Kings--Hants from the Progressive Conservative Democratic Coalition for his support for the principle of this important legislation.

It is clear that the Canadian public is well ahead of political leaders and of the government when it comes to this important issue of the basic right of equality of gay and lesbian people who choose to marry to be able to do so. The most recent public opinion poll showed that something like two-thirds of Canadians across Canada in every region of Canada were prepared to accept this equality. We are not talking about any kind of special rights or privileges. What we are talking about are equal rights, equal rights that are guaranteed to gay and lesbian people under section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms.

Under section 15 of our charter, which came into force in April 1985, all Canadians are equal. With respect to gay and lesbian people, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that gay and lesbian people are included under section 15 when they are involved in committed and loving relationships.

We have certainly made significant progress on the journey toward full equality both federally and at the provincial and territorial level. Last year landmark legislation was passed in the House of Commons, Bill C-23, legislation that extended a whole range of rights and responsibilities to gay and lesbian people and couples.

However Bill C-23 fell short in the critical area of recognition of the right to marry. In one of the final days of debate on the bill, the Liberal Minister of Justice introduced an amendment that shamefully explicitly excluded affirmation of the right of gay and lesbian people to marry.

I am confident the courts will ultimately rule that equality means equality and that we as gay and lesbian people should be entitled to the equal right to marriage.

I also want to acknowledge the important work EGALE has done on the issue of equality for gays and lesbians and on many other issues. EGALE is a national organization that speaks out on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people across the country. It has been tireless in its advocacy of equality and I salute the members of EGALE for continuing to work hard on this issue.

Many individuals, couples and organizations across the land have supported the right to full equality. I am proud as a New Democrat that my party is the only national party with a clear policy that calls for recognition of equality for gay and lesbian people in marriage and in all other areas of society. I speak today on behalf of the members of my caucus and the leader of my party, the member for Halifax, who has also, from the very beginning of her career and days in politics, been a tireless advocate for equality for gay and lesbian people.

A number of churches and religious leaders have also been in the forefront of this struggle. I particularly want to acknowledge the work done by Rev. Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church who has been promoting equality for many years. On January 14, 2001, Rev. Brent Hawkes, the pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto, celebrated the marriage between Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell, as well as the marriage of Elaine Vautour and Anne Vautour.

As Rev. Brent Hawkes said:

We look forward to the day, when Canada embraces the diversity of all people, and legally recognizes what God already knows--that love has no bounds.

The bill itself is a very short bill. It is entitled the Marriage Capacity Act and states that “a marriage between two persons is not invalid by reason only that they are of the same sex”.

I would note parenthetically that obviously all of the existing barriers to marriage, for example, barriers to marriage between relatives, or between brothers and sisters, remain in the existing legislation under the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act. Nothing changes that at all. Those barriers remain.

This would simply remove the common law barrier to same sex marriage. I would like to emphasize that this barrier goes back to a decision in the British courts from 1886 in a case called Hyde v Hyde. Those were the days when marriage had a very different meaning. In fact those were the days in which within the institution of marriage rape was legal and violence was legal. A husband was allowed to beat his wife as long as the stick that he used was no wider than the width of his thumb. Certainly a precedent dating back to those days and that recognition of marriage is not one which should be used to deny equality to gay and lesbian people today. It should certainly not be used in that way.

Indeed there are challenges to that. As I said, there is no statutory bar at the federal level. It is strictly judge made law and in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia there are currently cases proceeding in the courts to challenge that legal barrier.

In Quebec, a gay couple launched a court challenge, and we hope the two partners will win their case.

In Ontario the city of Toronto is supporting that legal challenge and in British Columbia the former attorney general, Andrew Petter, had the courage to speak out in support of the legal challenge as well.

There has been one ruling to date specifically on these challenges. It came in a British Columbia court decision by Mr. Justice Ian Pitfield, and I must say that many of us were astonished at that decision because it flies in the face of not only justice and reason but fairness. He found that the constitution of Canada itself, in his words, expressed an intention that discrimination would be permitted. This is an extraordinary ruling and one that I am confident will be overturned by the courts when it goes to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The bill would change the law to allow those gay and lesbian people who choose to marry to do so. It would not in any way affect religious marriage and it is important to underline that. It is strictly about civil marriage. Those faiths that are prepared to celebrate and affirm the marriages of gay and lesbian couples within their faith community would be permitted to do so. Those not prepared to do so would not in any way be required or forced to do so. Just as, for example, within some faiths there are barriers to interfaith marriages today that are not legally challenged in any way so too would that discretion still be there for religions not prepared to recognize the equality of their gay and lesbian parishioners.

I might be asked, what difference does marriage make and why do gay and lesbian people want the right, the choice, the option of marriage? I think it is important to recognize that marriage is the most prominent way today in which two persons' romantic love and commitment to each other are recognized and affirmed. Excluding gay and lesbian people from the institution of marriage sends a clear message that our relationships, the relationships of same sex couples, are somehow not as worthy of recognition and affirmation. On the other hand, including same sex marriages in civil marriage would send a positive message to all Canadians, one that says that regardless of whether someone loves a man or a woman that love will be valued, honoured, affirmed and treated with equal dignity and respect.

I often have the privilege of speaking in schools in my constituency and elsewhere. Kids like to talk about the lives of members of parliament and they ask what kind of life I have, what the challenges are, what I like about the job and what is difficult about the job. Sometimes kids will ask if I am married. I tell them I am not married, that I have a partner whose name is Max, we have been together for seven years and love one another very much, we want to spend the rest of our lives together and that relationship is very important to us and is the most important relationship in my life. Those kids will often ask why I cannot get married or why I do not get married or if I do not want to marry him. I tell them I do want to and I would like to have that choice, but I do not have it because the laws of this country do not allow me, as a gay man, that choice.

How would giving me and my partner Max that choice in any way weaken heterosexual marriage? How would it in any way weaken the strength, the love, the commitment of heterosexual partnerships? It would not change that at all. Surely heterosexual marriage is not so fragile that allowing gay and lesbian people to marry would cause it to come tumbling down like a house of cards. Surely in this time of such pain, in the aftermath of the horrors of September 11, any steps that we can take as a society to strengthen the affirmation of love in our society in a positive way is something we should be encouraging.

Marriage is about love and commitment. It is true that some gay and lesbian couples would not want to get married if that choice were available, just as some heterosexual couples choose to live common law, but surely we should recognize the right of choice. Canada would not be the first country to do so. The Netherlands moved earlier this year to fully recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

I am confident that it will happen in Canada as well, but why should gay and lesbian people be forced through the courts? Why should we be wasting taxpayers' money to fight for this small but important step on the road to full equality?

Sometimes it is said that we cannot allow gay and lesbian people to marry because marriage is about children and procreation. The best answer to that came in a very eloquent editorial in the Globe and Mail just this month. It said:

The issue of children is a red herring; many couples who are married do not procreate, many couples procreate outside marriage and many gay couples raise children, adopted or conceived with the egg or sperm of one partner. Expanding the tent would enable loving gays in committed relationships to agree to the solemn obligations of the marriage contract. And what are we talking of, if not respect for family values?

That is what I want to appeal to today in closing, those traditional family values. We as gay and lesbian people are families also. The bill would allow the full and equal recognition of our families. I call on all members of the House to support this important legislation.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, which part of the fundamental ILO standards does the Alliance consider nitpicking? Is it the internationally recognized fundamental right to organize and bargain collectively? Is it the right to equal pay for work of equal value? Is it the right to work free of discrimination? Is it the prohibition of child labour and forced labour?

These are basic standards that New Democrats believe workers around the world should be entitled to. If the Alliance says it is nitpicking, it is a pretty sad commentary on its respect for working people.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if they think these basic rights are litter then they can defend that to the Canadian people. I think the Canadian people would accept our concept that if we can protect the rights of multinational pharmaceutical companies in trade deals through patent rights, we can sure as heck protect the rights of working people to organize and we can sure as heck protect the environment.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the parliamentary secretary wants to ask the workers and the representatives of the workers in Costa Rica why it is they oppose the provisions of this so-called trade deal.

The hon. member asked a question about littering up trade deals with workers rights and environmental rights. The Liberal Party and the Alliance have a rather interesting notion of what constitutes litter. Is it litter to say that we believe that child labour should not be exploited in Costa Rica? Is it litter to say that we believe in the freedom of association of workers in Costa Rica? I do not think so. If the Liberal Party believes that is litter--

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will advise the Chair that I intend to divide my time with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

We have witnessed the most extraordinary spectacle in the House this afternoon: this unholy alliance between the Liberal Party, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, and the Canadian Alliance. They are attacking the New Democrats. Why is it that they are attacking us? They are attacking us because we have the effrontery to actually speak out for human rights, to speak out for the rights of working people and to speak out for the environment, because we have the nerve to talk about the importance of democracy and putting the rights of democratically elected representatives of the people of this country ahead of corporate rights. What a shocking thing.

The hon. member from Calgary who spoke earlier on behalf of the Alliance said that we have to listen to the people from the south and that this legislation will be good for them. I wish that member had listened to the voices from the south, from Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Peru, Brazil and elsewhere when they were in Quebec City speaking about the destructive impact of the existing trade deals on their people. Had he been at the women's forum in Quebec City he would have heard women speaking about the appalling conditions in the maquiladora zones in Mexico, the poisoning of workers from chemicals, the violence and the ruthless repression of the rights of working people.

The member from Calgary asks why we are nitpicking over workers' rights. I will tell him. Is it nitpicking to say that working people should have the right under ILO standards to organize and bargain collectively, the right to equal pay for work of equal value, the right to work free of discrimination and prohibitions? They should not have to work without any restrictions at all on child labour and forced labour.

What is it that the Liberal Party and the Alliance do not understand about the rights of working people? Or is it that they do not really give a damn about the rights of working people? All they really care about is corporate profit. That is the bottom line for them.

We in the New Democratic Party oppose the legislation and we say that this Canada-Costa Rica bilateral free trade agreement is in fact part of what would lay the groundwork for a hemispheric agreement that would simply replicate all of the destructive impact of the existing NAFTA. We want nothing to do with that, certainly nothing that would increase the momentum toward a free trade area of the Americas, an FTAA.

Why is that? Too often Canada's trade policy has ignored social considerations, human considerations, the environment and the rights of workers and has put strictly commercial advantages for Canadian corporations ahead of all of them. There is no better example of that than chapter 11 of NAFTA. While chapter 11 of NAFTA is not explicitly included in the Canada-Costa Rica bilateral free trade agreement, it is in fact imported into that agreement.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs when my friend, the hon. member for Joliette and Bloc Quebecois critic on international trade, tried to move a very clear amendment to exclude chapter 11 from this Canada-Costa Rica agreement, but the government did not accept this fundamental principle.

We already know that the rights of working people in Costa Rica have been trampled on. It is virtually impossible to form or join a trade union in Costa Rica in the private sector because of the hostility from employers and the government's unwillingness to enforce its own labour laws.

We know that Costa Rica was the birthplace of the anti-worker Solidarista movement which set up employer sponsored associations in banana plantations to supplant bona fide trade unions. In the banana zone in Costa Rica working conditions are appalling and dangerous because of the lack of protection for workers using chemicals, resulting in the birth of genetically deformed babies, sterility, ill health and death among workers. In the private sector, Costa Rican workers are effectively denied any opportunity for collective bargaining whatsoever.

The Canadian Labour Congress and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which represents 125 million workers worldwide, recently wrote to the president of Costa Rica, Dr. Miguel Angel Rodriguez, expressing their concern about the situation faced by Costa Rican workers, especially those in the public sector.

What does the government say? The government says that it has great side accords. It says that it has a side accord on labour and on the environment. We have seen this movie before. We have seen the so-called side accords under the existing NAFTA and they are a joke. They do not protect workers and they sure as heck do not protect the environment.

When governments fail to enforce labour laws that protect such basic rights as the freedom of association, what is the recourse under the side agreement under NAFTA? They can make a submission to the national administrative office of a signatory government. What can that office do? It can recommend ministerial consultations with the offending government, and that is it. There is no respect for the fundamental rights of workers and no respect for the environment whatsoever, and that is continued in the Canada-Costa Rica agreement.

Far from expanding the principles of NAFTA, which put corporate rights ahead of democracy, ahead of the rights of working people, ahead of the environment and ahead of basic human rights, we should be replacing that agreement with a fair trade agreement.

We do not support the bill and we certainly do not support the extension of NAFTA into Costa Rica or anywhere else in this hemisphere.

I want to take a moment to say a few words about the impact of the bill on the sugar industry. I recently met with representatives of Rogers Sugar, an refinery that has over 200 employees in the Vancouver area located in the constituency of my colleague for Vancouver East. Many of those workers live in my constituency of Burnaby--Douglas.

Rogers has been around for about 112 years. It is a Canadian owned company. It provides quality union jobs to over 200 employees who are members of the Retail Wholesale Union. It contributes about $33 million to the economy. I want to be very clear that the employees, the management of Rogers refinery, as well as others in the sugar industry across Canada, are deeply concerned about the implications of the bill for the survival of that industry.

If the bill in any way is seen to be a model or a template for negotiations with the so-called CA-4 nations of Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, it will be very destructive for the sugar industry in Canada.

I was pleased that the foreign affairs committee made a recommendation to the government. The recommendation was not part of the bill but it was a strong unanimous recommendation that this not be seen in any way as a model.

Certainly, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I want to make it very clear that we reject any extension of this Canada-Costa Rica agreement to the other countries I have mentioned. It could very well spell the end for the Rogers Sugar refinery.

In closing, I would once again say that we as New Democrats have always supported a rules based trading system but what we have seen too often is that those rules benefit not working people, not small businesses, not the environment and not human rights. They simply hurt the poorest of the poor.

I have not even had the opportunity to speak to the implications the bill would have for agriculture. I would note that too often agri-business means that more and more small farmers, some of the poorest farmers in Central and South America, are being pushed off their land because of cheap imports coming in from the north. Certainly, that is not acceptable.

We have serious concerns as well about the impact of pesticides in the agriculture industry in Costa Rica but these concerns have not been addressed in the legislation. In terms of human rights and in terms of the implications for agriculture, the environment, the rights of the working people and for democracy itself, we say no to the legislation and we say no to the extension of the bill into any form of FTAA.

[United Nations Day, October 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today, October 24, is United Nations Day.

As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan pointed out, this is a very special day for each member of the United Nations family and for all those who believe in the ideals of that organization.

This year the United Nations has been awarded the Nobel Peace Price for its important work in promoting peace, defending human rights and fighting poverty.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I join in congratulating the United Nations, all of its agencies, and all the dedicated staff and volunteers for their important contributions.

Canadians have always played a key role in the United Nations: John Humphrey, Lester Pearson and others. We played a particularly significant role in United Nations peacekeeping.

At this critical time we call for the United Nations to play the central role in bringing to justice the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity of September 11 and in rebuilding Afghanistan in the future.

[Rehavam Ze'evi, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues I rise to strongly condemn the murder of Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi. This tragic death will only fuel the destructive violence which has already led to far too many deaths of innocent Palestinians and Israelis.

We join in calling for an end to all violence, for the full respect of all UN resolutions affecting the Middle East and for an international United Nations presence in the occupied territories. Both the Palestinians and the Israelis must be entitled to live in viable, independent states in mutual security and in peace.

We extend our condolences to the family of Minister Ze'evi and to the people of Israel at this painful time.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-36. These are particularly dangerous and fragile times not only for us as Canadians but internationally as well. We are witnessing a United States led bombing campaign in Afghanistan which, in my view and the view of my colleagues, is in breach of international law. The response to the September 11 terrorist attacks should be under the framework of the United Nations.

These are also very dangerous and difficult times on the domestic front. Thomas Berger wrote an eloquent book on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. He called it Fragile Freedoms and indeed the freedoms that Canadians have are fragile, particularly those set out in the charter of rights and freedoms.

It is precisely at times such as these that those freedoms are potentially under the greatest assault. We recall during World War I the internment of Canadians of Ukrainian origin, and in World War II the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin and the confiscation of their property.

Of course in 1970, the War Measures Act was invoked and 400 Quebecers were arrested without any evidence, incarcerated for several weeks and then released.

I am very proud of the fact that at the time the NDP was the only party to say “No, this is not acceptable; this is an abuse of power”.

Before we invoke the kinds of sweeping new powers contained in Bill C-36, it is critically important that the government demonstrate to Canadians that the existing powers in legislation accorded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to CSIS, to the Communications Security Establishment and to the Canadian armed forces are inadequate to respond to the terrorist threat. If we are not in a position to ensure that is indeed the case and if we are extending sweeping new powers, they risk violating the most fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the charter of rights. I believe that in a preliminary review of this legislation there are a number of provisions of the legislation that risk violating the charter of rights and freedoms.

I have a particular personal interest in that charter having been a member of the constitution committee that drafted the charter of rights back in 1980-81. I believe I am the only sitting member of the House who was in fact a member of the committee that wrote the charter of rights and freedoms. I recall the minister of justice at the time was the member for Shawinigan, today's Prime Minister. We wrote that charter for a very specific reason. It was to ensure, particularly at times of widespread popular sentiment that might risk assaults on fundamental rights and freedoms, that the judiciary would be in a position to say “No, you are going too far”. I believe that we risk going too far in this legislation.

Certainly the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin was popular. The proclamation of the War Measures Act was very popular. However they were both profoundly wrong. When I read for example the definition of terrorist activity in this legislation none of us have any concerns about the incorporation of the various United Nations conventions. My colleague the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, the New Democratic Party justice critic, spoke earlier on this legislation. He pointed out that there was no issue with respect to that or indeed a number of other provisions of this legislation that we would be prepared to support.

However the definition of terrorist activity I believe goes too far. It refers to political, religious or ideological purposes. It talks about causing serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of lawful advocacy. Consider for a moment the possible risks of this and what this could be applied to. There are many examples of this, some historic, some current.

The African National Congress in its fight against the brutal and racist apartheid regime in South Africa would clearly have been caught by this legislation, as would any Canadian who supported the African National Congress in its fight against apartheid. I see the member for Edmonton--Strathcona. I know he was a long time opponent of apartheid. He probably even sent a dollar or two to assist in the struggle against it. Had this legislation been in effect, he, as well as I and others, would have risked imprisonment for that. I do not want to see us bringing in legislation that would imprison people who are supporting those who are fighting tyrannical, brutal, repressive regimes.

I recall the freedom fighters in East Timor fighting against the genocidal Indonesian regime. I remember the Sandinistas fighting against Somoza in Nicaragua. I remember the FMLN in El Salvador. Those are some of the historic examples. As Alan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “It is one thing to say we won't countenance people assisting dictators against democrats, but why shouldn't Canadians be free to assist democrats against dictators?” This bill would appear to criminalize that activity.

Today we know that there are people around the world who are engaged in struggles. Whether Canadians agree or disagree with them, do we want to define as terrorists those who support self-determination for the Tamils, for the Chechens, for the Kurds or the Kashmiris? I think here particularly of the Kurds who have been tortured, villages that have been destroyed by the repressive Turkish regime, and member of parliament Leyla Zana who has been imprisoned. For those of us who wish to support them in their struggle against that repressive regime, would we be subject to this legislation?

Here in Canada would environmentalists or labour activists who were engaged in protests be subject to the sweeping powers under this bill?

My colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona has pointed out as well the provisions on preventive detention and investigative questioning, the sweeping new wiretapping provisions, the new unprecedented powers to the Communications Security Establishment, the powers for ministers to override the freedom of information legislation by executive fiat.

I will say in closing that I would support sending the subject matter of the bill to committee, and sending it to committee urgently, but I cannot support the bill in its present form. I believe that the powers that are in the bill constitute potentially a very grave abuse of civil liberties.

There must be a sunset clause as well, not simply a review after three years but a sunset clause, to ensure that the many draconian provisions of the bill in fact are not extended beyond a one year period.

I voice my deep concern about the legislation and in closing point out the words of Clayton Ruby who has reminded Canadians that once these extraordinary powers are brought in, they are not rolled back. As Fred Kaufman, a former judge of the Quebec Court of Appeal, who was appointed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau to prosecute people after the 1970 FLQ crisis, said, “One has to be careful because emergency legislation drafted in haste stays on the statute book”.