Svend Robinson

[Chief Actuary Act, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there can be no more fundamental right for consumers than the right to know what is in the food they eat and yet this basic right continues to be denied to Canadian consumers.

In March of this year I asked a question of the Minister of Industry. It was answered by the Minister of Health. I pointed out that over three years ago the Minister of Industry set up an industry dominated task force to write its own rules for voluntary labelling of genetically engineered food. It was a group that was set up by the Canadian General Standards Board, and it was basically an industry run body. Earlier this year, the head of that group admitted that it was going nowhere and that it was basically a farce.

I called on the government at that time to recognize that over 80% of Canadians wanted to know what was in the food they ate and I urged the government to agree to the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods.

Instead of responding that, yes, the government was prepared to move ahead on that, the Minister of Health told the House that “we have voluntary labelling requirements” and, “we were trying to figure out if agreement could be reached around mandatory labelling”.

Of course the minister was completely wrong on that. We do not even have voluntary labelling requirements today, let alone mandatory.

In July of this year, a couple of months after that process obviously was going nowhere, the Consumers Association of Canada withdrew from the committee that was working on the standard for voluntary labelling of genetically engineered foods because it said that the standard was so weak that it would not represent consumer concerns. The process has lost any vestiges of integrity.

I would point out that this process was set up in response to a motion by the member for Davenport who came before the House of Commons which effectively called for mandatory labelling. Instead, four ministers of the Liberal government wrote a letter to members of Parliament saying that the government would have a serious, indepth study of the issue. That study has never taken place. In fact, it was Liberal members of the committee, together with the Canadian Alliance, who subverted that study when I tried to have the committee move ahead on it.

The president of the Consumers Association of Canada said:

Canadian consumers deserve to know whether or not their food contains genetically modifiedfoods and they deserve a strong mandatory standard that holds industry accountable. The committee has beendeveloping a voluntary standard that may satisfy industry, but does not meet the needs ofconsumers.

This so-called voluntary standard would have allowed 5% as opposed to 1% in the European Union, and other provisions as well that were quite unacceptable.

Today I am once again calling upon the government to do the right thing, to recognize that its so-called voluntary process, which is an industry driven process, is going nowhere, to allow for consumers to know what is in the food they eat and to recognize that we have the right to mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that parliamentarians stand and tell the truth about what has happened, both in Parliament and in the courts. The fact of the matter is that this member should know that in 1981, while a motion to explicitly include sexual orientation in section 15 of the Charter of Rights was rejected, the minister of justice at the time explicitly stated as well that he was leaving section 15 open-ended to allow for the possibility that the courts might in future include new grounds, including sexual orientation.

In fact in 1985 a parliamentary committee made up of five Conservatives, one Liberal and one New Democrat, myself, travelled across the country to hear the views of Canadians about what section 15 should in fact encompass. Should it include sexual orientation and other grounds? That parliamentary committee made up of elected representatives unanimously said yes, that section 15 should in fact prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. It was in March of 1986 that the then minister of justice, John Crosbie, accepted that.

When the member stands and says that the courts are taking on jurisdiction, that they are not listening to Parliament, the fact of the matter is Parliament almost a decade before the Supreme Court included sexual orientation in Egan and Nesbit. Parliament spoke then.

Finally, I would point out that Parliament spoke through the justice committee earlier in saying “Accept this resolution”. Tell the truth.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his work on this issue. I believe that in 1995 he put forward a motion to recognize same sex marriage. He has fought relentlessly for this recognition ever since.

The member is right. I do not understand what the threat is. In Quebec in particular, public opinion polls show that there is broad support for equal marriage rights. The fact that there is a Quebec coalition for the recognition of same sex marriage proves it. Canadians who are for equal marriage rights also showed their support. I hope the members from Quebec will not only reject this attack on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but will also support the fundamental equality of gay and lesbian couples across Canada, including in Quebec.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, to set the record straight I would point out that each and every member of the New Democrat caucus in the House today will oppose this motion. This is an issue of fundamental human rights as our leader Jack Layton has said.

My colleague has referred to the member for Churchill. The member for Churchill has expressed concern around the change in definition, but I want to be very clear that the member for Churchill will not in any way be supporting a motion that calls on Parliament to override the most basic and fundamental rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She will not vote for that, nor will any member of this caucus.

Not only have the courts spoken, the House of Commons justice committee has spoken. A motion which I proposed, calling on Parliament to accept the definition of marriage as the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled was supported by the justice committee. It is the courts, it is the justice committee and today I hope Parliament, by a majority, will reaffirm as well our commitment to equality, to religious freedom and most important, in the context of today's motion, to the Charter of Rights itself.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

My colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle reminds me he was also in the House at that time.

It was the leader of the Liberal Party, today's Prime Minister, who celebrated the coming into force of the Charter of Rights and pointed out:

In a global sense we are all part of a minority, and thus subject to the tyranny of the majority. If we are not protected by the rule of the law which is embedded in the rock of our Constitution, what is left?

We celebrated that day the coming into force of the Charter, and I think we should be very clear that the effect of the passage of this motion today would be to fundamentally and profoundly reject that Charter of Rights. It would be to override that Charter of Rights to deny the basic equality of gay and lesbian people in Canada.

I want to appeal particularly to Liberal members to reject that suggestion that we use the notwithstanding clause. Someone said that there would be an amendment and that they would take out any reference to all possible measures. The reality is that in law with the courts having ruled there is only one possible way to overturn those decisions and that is by using the notwithstanding clause. That is what this debate is fundamentally about today.

“Why are they doing this”, Robbie asked. “What is the threat?”

My colleague from Brandon—Souris spoke eloquently about his marriage of 31 years. A couple of weeks ago there was a demonstration of about 200 people outside my office and I know outside many offices of members of Parliament. I spoke to those folks who had deeply held views, deeply religious views. I asked those who were married to put up their hands and many of them did. I asked those who raised their hands to tell me if their marriages would be any less strong, any less committed, any less loving, if I were able to celebrate the joy and the love of my partnership with my partner Max through marriage. I asked if it would it weaken their marriages? I would ask my friend from Saint John if her marriage with her husband Richard of so many years would be in any way diminished by allowing me to celebrate my relationship with my partner Max. I said, “Put up your hands if you believe that” and no one did. We know that it would not happen.

For us, as gay and lesbian people, this debate is not just a political debate. It is an intensely personal debate as well because we are talking about our lives, about my life, about my partner and about my ability as a citizen of this country to enjoy equal status. That goes to the core of the values which I believe we should be fighting for as Canadians.

Our relationship of a little over nine years is just as strong, just as loving, just as committed as any other relationship. In fact it was a life-sustaining relationship for me, following a near fatal accident. It kept me alive. If Max and I should choose to celebrate our love through marriage, why should that be denied us, or any other gay and lesbian couple in Canada today?

I have had the privilege of witnessing a number of marriages since they became legal in Canada and it is a very moving thing for me. In Toronto two men who had been together for 31 years, the same number of years as my friend from Brandon, said after the celebration of their marriage in front of their families and their friends that it was the first time in their 31 years that they felt truly equal in their own country. I celebrate that and I honour them.

As New Democrats we say that this is an issue of fundamental human rights. I want to particularly pay tribute to my colleagues, members like the member for Vancouver East who spoke out so courageously during the debate on my private member's bill in October of 2001, the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle who seconded my motion in 1981 to include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights, the member for Palliser who spoke out with passion, with conviction and with courage at a demonstration outside his office for equality and dignity and yes, my leader Jack Layton who has said that for him this is a fundamental issue of justice and human rights, who at his own marriage to his partner, his wife, Olivia Chow, lamented the fact that his gay and lesbian friends were not able to celebrate their marriages, and who has talked of witnessing the tremendous love and bonds of gay men in the epidemic of AIDS.

It was only in 1967 in the United States that laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down. When some Canadians say that marriage is immutable, that it has not changed, I would remind them that in fact there have been significant changes.

Yes, of course we protect and we honour religious freedom. One of the essential elements of the government's draft legislation is to ensure that no one is required in any way to solemnize a marriage that does not respect their religious values. Indeed the Ontario Court of Appeals has said that freedom of religion ensures that religious groups have the option of refusing to solemnize same sex marriages. The equality guarantee, however, ensures that the beliefs and practices of various religious groups are not imposed upon persons who do not share those views.

Equality for gay and lesbian couples and respect for religious freedom is what this is about. The motion before the House today would override those fundamental principles, and I call on members of the House to reject the motion.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

I want to start off by thanking the member for Brandon—Souris for his courageous and eloquent remarks in opposition to the motion before the House today.

“Why are they doing this?” That question was asked yesterday by an 11 year old boy, Robbie Barnett-Kemper, in this place at a press conference with the group Canadians for Equal Marriage. Robbie and his sister Hannah have two moms. They have been raised in a loving and nurturing family by Alison Kemper and Joyce Barnett, who have been together since 1984. Alison has said this.

Our lives together have been spent overcoming those who would wish us to be apart or invisible. We are committed to ensuring that our children have as secure and rich a life as possible. Marriage is one more step.

Yesterday their son Robbie asked why the Canadian Alliance was trying to take away that marriage, that marriage that was celebrated with such great joy in June of this year. In answering that question I suppose one could say that the Canadian Alliance members at least have the virtue of consistency because we know that they have voted consistently. On every occasion that the House has been called on to speak out for equality for gay and lesbian people, they have voted against. This is entirely consistent with that position, whether it was on human rights legislation in 1996, hate crimes legislation, legislation recognizing same sex benefits or, as we know, tomorrow voting against legislation that would include sexual orientation in hate propaganda laws in Canada. The Alliance has been consistent.

I particularly want to appeal today, not to my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance because I understand that they do not fundamentally believe in equality based on their voting record so far, to my colleagues in the Liberal Party. As I look around the House, I know there is only one other member here, my friend from Calgary Centre, who was in this House on April 17 of 1985, the day that the Charter of Rights came into force.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, not only for his speech today, but for his leadership since this debate began. He worked extremely hard on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It was very encouraging to see such leadership from the hon. member.

I want to ask the hon. member to again answer the question asked by my friend from Calgary Southeast. He suggested that the courts handed down rulings that are contrary to the will of members. He spoke of what happened with the Constitution committee in 1980-1981. It is true that I had proposed an amendment to explicitly include sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The members voted it down.

Back then, I asked the Prime Minister, then Minister of Justice, whether he thought that, once the charter was adopted, the courts would interpret it so as to exclude discrimination based on sexual orientation. He said that this was possible, that it was up to the courts to decide and that this issue was not yet resolved. In 1985, a parliamentary committee consisting of five Progressive Conservatives, one Liberal and one New Democrat unanimously decided that the Constitution should be interpreted as including sexual orientation. Such is history.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment. I want to remind the House that in May of 1996 the now Leader of the Opposition, then the member for Calgary, voted with the Reform Party against the most basic and fundamental protection of human rights of gays and lesbians in Canada and voted against the inclusion of gays and lesbians in human rights legislation. That is the context within which this member is speaking.

More fundamentally, I want to ask the hon. member to take this opportunity to rise in the House and apologize for the despicable and contemptuous attack that he launched on the judiciary of Canada in concocting a bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that the Prime Minister of Canada was in cahoots with members of the judiciary to somehow impose an agenda of same sex marriage on the country. That kind of contemptuous attack on the judiciary is unworthy of the member. I hope he will take this opportunity to apologize.

Finally, will the Leader of the Opposition come clean with Canadians and make it clear to them that the Canadian Alliance agenda today in calling on Parliament to take all necessary steps is quite clearly calling on Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause to override the most basic and fundamental rights of Canadians?

If in fact the courts have ruled as they have in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, there is only one way to override the charter and that is to show contempt for the charter by overriding it. Will he at least have the honesty to admit that this is the agenda of the Canadian Alliance today?

[Foreign Affairs, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Last week, two respected Canadian Muslim religious leaders and Islamic scholars, Ahmed Kutty and Abdool Hamid, travelled to Florida to lead prayer services. Instead, they were handcuffed, thrown in jail, interrogated and kicked out of the United States.

Why has the Liberal government not called for a full independent inquiry and apology and why has it not protested this shameful racist treatment of these and too many other Muslim and Arab Canadians?

[Foreign Affairs, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

After the horrors of what happened in Rwanda 10 years ago, the international community vowed never again to stand idly by as a genocide unfolded. But as sad and surprising as it may be, it looks as though we are witnessing another genocide in the Congo.

France has sent out troops under UN mandate, but observers are saying that their numbers are insufficient to control the situation.

Why did Canada not do everything in its power to avert yet another genocide in Africa?