Andrew Telegdi

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, the government has instituted and just finished off a $100 billion over five years tax cut, which is the biggest tax cut in the history of the country. We are also raising the personal exemptions to $10,000.

There is one area that very much benefits every Canadian. All we have to do is look at the interest rates paid on borrowed money today. Many people take out mortgages for their houses. They are at a record low. They were at a record high when we took over from the Conservative Party.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am quite aware of the kinesiology program at the University of Waterloo. There are many other programs that I was unable to mention such as psychology, from which I graduated at the University of Waterloo while undertaking courses in history and political science. I agree with him that clearly this is one of the top universities.

Look back 10 years at all the traditional industries that closed down in our region such as Van Dresser, Seagram and Labatt. All sorts of industries related to knitting also closed down in other places in Cambridge and Kitchener. He knows well that we now have one of the fastest growing and most prosperous economies. This is because our labour force is highly educated and we have a great deal of innovation.

Companies have started up in our region, many of them high tech companies. No one even dreamt of them being in existence 15 years ago. The member well knows that this is one community that proves to all other places across the country that investing in education and innovation makes a huge difference.

The member mentioned some unfortunate situations that happened at the hospital. The government has put in billions of dollars to try to secure the health care for people in the Waterloo region as well as all Canadians. One important thing has to happen in health care, and that is we have to rationalize services. The member, as a health care provider, knows the importance of that, particularly when he practised as a chiropractor. He knows we have to have a whole range of services available in health care to the Canadian public.

[The Budget, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this debate on the budget. I think most members will agree and demonstrate by their votes that it is a solid budget for the people of Canada, and we look forward to that acceptance tonight.

I could be talking about health care and improvements made there. The secretary of state just talked about seniors. We have great improvements in the environment and environmental technologies, heritage and the military. However, given the nature of my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo, I will focus on three areas: immigration, students and post-secondary education, and research and development.

My constituency of Kitchener--Waterloo is part of Canada's technology triangle. Within Canada's technology triangle there are 554 technology enterprises plus 404 others that provide related services. The technology sector provides 10% of the employment in the Waterloo-Guelph region and accounts for 45% of job growth.

The post-secondary institutions in my riding include Conestoga College, which is the number one college in Ontario. The college has 65 full or part time programs in applied arts, business, health sciences, engineering technology and trades.

The University of Waterloo is known worldwide for its leading computer science, mathematics and engineering programs. It has the world's largest enrollment in mathematics, 10% of Canada's engineering graduates, 15% of mathematics and computer science Ph.D.s in Canada, and 30% of all mathematics graduates in Ontario. The university has the world's largest co-op education program with over 10,000 co-op students each year. It was the University of Waterloo that pioneered cooperative education in Canada.

Wilfrid Laurier University is best known for its excellence in business and economics programs. Its faculties include arts, science, business and economics, graduate studies and social work. Since 1984 The Laurier Institute has designed and delivered management development programs to organizations in and around Canada's technology triangle.

There are 53 research institutes at the University of Waterloo: fifteen in information and communication technology, seven in engineering, six in science, five in life sciences, three in environment, three in education, three in mathematics, two in business, one in biotechnology and eight others. The Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology hosts one centre of excellence in engineering.

There are other research institutions in the Waterloo-Guelph region including the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, and the Grand River Regional Cancer Centre. In addition, institutes for technology transfers include Guelph Food Technology Centre and the Waterloo Biotechnology Research Centre.

I would like to point out that when I first came into this House in 1993 and I listened to the first Speech from the Throne that was put forward by the government, there was no mention of post-secondary education or research and development.

At that time I, along with the member for Peterborough and John English who was the member for Kitchener, started up the post-secondary education caucus. We were pushing for research and development in our post-secondary institutions. We really believed that the future of Canada lay in our innovation, and to that end, technology research funding in post-secondary education is very important. The member who chairs this committee for our caucus is the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. I might add that this is one of the strongest caucuses we have in the Liberal Party.

If I go back to the whole area where we as a federal government got involved in research, which was probably in 1998 and 1999. At that time the cumulative money that we put in that year was $165 million. This year we are putting in a total of $2.085 billion or a total from 1998-99 of $9.97 billion. This is an incredible investment. I think members have seen from the budget and from our economic performance that it reflects the reality that innovation has been driving the economy in Canada.

When I compare the realities of what happened prior to the Liberal government assuming office and now and when we look at those figures, it clearly is good news. The national debt left to us by the previous Conservative government amounted to $562 billion before we were able to turn it around by balancing the budget.

This year we will for the first time be under $500 billion on the national debt. This is important. When we had a huge debt, as we had back then, 37.6% of every dollar went to finance that debt. The debt financing charges even today are too high. They are 19%. We are working on bringing them down and because we have done that, we are able to invest in programs for people in our communities across Canada.

The unemployment rate before we assumed office was 11.2%. At the present time nationally it is below 7%. I might add that Kitchener-Waterloo recorded the lowest unemployment rate in the last census. We were in the 5.4% category. All of this is very important. The best social program we can have in the country is to ensure that those people who want to work are able to find jobs and find meaningful employment.

Another issue I want to touch on in the budget relates to immigration. I commend the government for putting in an extra $298 million for settlement services, as well as $100 million over five years to target investment in the department. Also, $75 million has been put in to ensure that internationally trained health workers have an opportunity to become engaged in a sector where we really have a manpower shortage, and I commend the government for that. I look forward in future budgets to have the refugee appeal division as a budget line item in the budget so we can put the refugee appeal division in place.

As we look to the future, Canada is one of the leading economies in terms of having a budgetary surplus, paying down debt, being able to invest in programs and reducing the amount of money spent on interest payments. Ultimately it is our investment in people, our investment in our young people, our post-secondary institutions and our investment in research and development that will ensure we have an innovative economy that can provide the kind of standard of living that Canadians have come to expect.

[Committees of the House, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is very much an opportunity to show leadership. It is a dramatic differentiation between ourselves and our neighbours to the south who have taken a different stance. In some parts of this world gays and lesbians are executed for no other reason than because they are gays and lesbians. In terms of us showing leadership, far beyond tolerance to inclusiveness is a good thing. I think it will help make for a better world.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague from Calgary Centre for his stand on this particular issue. I know it is not always easy to stand alone or to stand with very few people in his party because he is standing up for what he believes to be right. I congratulate him on that.

On the issue of religious freedom, I think it is imperative that religious freedom be maintained. The courts have done that. To me religious freedom is a very important issue. I will go back to my days when I was living in Hungary under a communist dictatorship. I used to rise and attend three masses every Sunday morning, even though the state frowned upon it. I looked upon Cardinal Mindszenty who was the real focus of resistance against Stalin and the communist dictatorship. Freedom of religion is something that I have greatly appreciated and will fight for.

There is no question that the ruling has protected freedom of religion. Essentially, this bill has increased freedom of religion. The reason I say that is because some religions believe that they should be able to marry same sex couples. The United Church has come to that conclusion. The Unitarian Church has taken that direction and today we have debate in many of the churches. The latest is the debate in the Anglican Church. Who knows, they might even expel the Canadian congregation because of this debate on same sex marriage.

I believe that Bill C-38 enhances religious freedom. It allows churches that previously were not able to marry same sex couples to do so. Also, it puts the debate where it belongs.

There is a limitation on what governments can do. This is where churches and other institutions become very important. By that, what I mean is we can pass laws that thou shalt not kill thy neighbour and that thou shalt not assault thy neighbour. However, we in this chamber can never pass a law that thou shalt love thy neighbour. That can only be done by other institutions in our society, churches being one of them.

People have no need to fear in terms of religious freedom. This bill is very consistent with religious freedom. It also enhances religious freedom by giving the churches, the temples, the gurdwara, and the synagogues an opportunity to debate if they are going to allow same sex marriage within their institutions, yes or no. The decision will be made by the congregation and that is where the debate fully belongs, not in terms of a secular government. We have to embrace all Canadians and also appreciate their differences.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, we always had a Constitution. The charter is a relatively new addition. However, sure it can be changed. Things can be changed. That is why we are here as members of Parliament.

The fact that we took away the colour barrier to immigration was a good thing. All Canadians recognize that to be the case. The fact that we would no longer intern Canadians because of where they came in time of conflict is a very good thing.

The Constitution is a living document and it evolves, just as our society has evolved. The fact that women have the vote, surely my colleague would agree with me that it is a good thing.

The real question in terms of our Constitution is who should make the decision when it comes to the question of rights. Should it be the politicians or should it be the courts? Our Constitution says it should be the courts.

When I named all those injustices that have occurred in the past, it is important to remember that it was done collectively by politicians. It was not done by the judiciary. It was done by politicians that can be referred to as the capriciously elected.

When the question comes to rights, we have to recognize and applaud the fact that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and celebrate the fact that in our country it is the courts that are the guardians of rights.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to partake in this historic debate. Let me congratulate the member for Vancouver East who just spoke very eloquently on the issue, as well as the member for Burnaby—Douglas. This must be a very happy occasion for them, as it is for all gays and lesbians in Canada.

When we talk about Canada we must recognize that we are a collection of minorities. There is no majority in this country. Everybody belongs to a minority group to the extent that we might be in the majority one day, and we could very easily be in a minority position the next.

This issue deals with the rights of a minority. It was not that long ago when Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared that the government had no business in the nation's bedrooms, and homosexuality was actually legalized. It is important when we talk about the context of Bill C-38 that we talk about it in terms of two particular issues. We talk about the legal aspects and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but we must also talk about why Bill C-38 is good public policy.

If we pass this bill, we will join two other nations in leading the world in inclusiveness. This is important because we are not talking about tolerance as we talk about this bill; we are talking about inclusiveness and what kind of country we as Canadians want.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has played such an important part in the debates on this issue and clearly the Supreme Court has ruled on the applicability of the charter. Let us consider why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some issues. Let me go through some of them.

We had the Asian exclusion act. We had the Chinese head tax. We had internment of Ukrainians and others from Austro-Hungary. We had internment of Italians and Germans. We had internment of Japanese Canadians. We had the almost forceful repatriation of Japanese Canadians after the second world war. We sent them back to Japan even though that country had been destroyed during the war and even though the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I mention that because many of those people were Canadian born.

Of course, we all know about the SS St. Louis , a ship that was carrying Jews looking for refuge. Canada along with other countries in North America and South America turned them away. We know that we had a policy of none is too many for the Jews. We know that the colour barrier existed on immigration until 1977. We know that there was cultural genocide against our first nations. We know what happened with the residential schools. We know about the ban on potlatches and that big houses were outlawed. We know that women were not given the right to vote until 1917, and it was not until 1929 that the English privy council recognized women as persons.

In talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is important to mention that Canada has a constitutional government. We are governed in terms of our Constitution. It is important to point out that subsection 52(1) of the Constitution states:

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the in consistency, of no force or effect.

That is important to understand. It means that the interpreters of the Constitution in our constitutional democracy are the courts and we leave questions relating to the Constitution to them. It was the courts that made the ruling that same sex marriage is indeed something that is desirable and legal and that for us not to adopt it would be discriminatory. We would have to use section 33 of the Constitution which deals with the notwithstanding clause.

The reason our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted on April 17, 1982 is that it dealt with the recognition of the evolution of this country. It dealt with the recognition of how minorities had not been treated very well. It dealt with making sure that we learned from the lessons of the past and that as we looked forward to the future in terms of evolving as a nation, that we used the charter and the past as a guidance to the kind of inclusive Canada we want to build.

As a nation we pay a very heavy price for intolerance. Gay bashing still exists. Gays are still attacked and killed. There is a high rate of suicide among gays and lesbians in our country. Hate propaganda still exists. I mention that because it is so very important for us to look at our country's history and a vulnerable group that has been stigmatized and victimized in the last 40 years has been allowed to come out of the shadows. We all know members of this House who are gays or lesbians. We know they are essentially the same kind of people as we are. We know they have the same kind of dreams that we have. We know that they have the same kind of love that we have, whether we are heterosexual or not.

When I talk about intolerance, let me use the example of Fred Phelps, the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. After 9/11 he stated:

The Rod of God hath smitten fag America! ....At left is the filthy face of fag evil. [Hijacked and murdered American Airlines pilot] David Charlebois. One of the hundreds of fags and dykes and fag-/dyke-enablers working for American Airlines--

Most of us very strongly reject that type of commentary. Because of that kind of commentary we passed Bill C-250 which dealt with hate propaganda. We did that to protect a minority in our country, a minority that has been a vulnerable minority.

When I mentioned the price of intolerance and I mentioned suicides, gays and lesbians are seven to eight times more likely to attempt suicide than are heterosexual Canadians. About 30% of suicides in Canada are gays and lesbians, approximately 818 to 968 deaths per year. This is about 15 times the rate for heterosexuals.

Let me talk about why this bill is good public policy. It is good public policy because it recognizes gays and lesbians as people of the same sex who are involved in a loving relationship. It is indeed good public policy. Any time there is stability in a loving relationship it is good public policy. It helps people with their self-worth.

We as a society very much have an interest in promoting stability among couples. It is in our interests to be inclusive. It is also in our interests to accept the children of those parents who are in same sex relationships. That provides a great deal of stability.

There is a dichotomy of views in Canada. As we have been engaged in this debate it has been interesting to look at young Canadians, particularly those young Canadians who have grown up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There was a series of articles in the Globe and Mail in 2003 which resulted in the book called The New Canada . It talks about the new face of Canada. One of the conclusions in the book is that we in Canada have the most inclusive young people in the world.

For example, about a year ago people were asked if they were in favour of same sex marriage. Of the people in the age group 18 to 34, 65% said yes. For people 55 and older, it was 32%. In response to the question whether they believed in protection of the charter for gays and lesbians, 81.2% of the younger generation said yes, while it was down to 56.1% for the older generation.

The issue we are dealing with is so very fundamental to our well-being as a country. I can only conclude with some comments from people who have written to our national newspapers.

This was written by Marie Morrison and appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record on February 17:

--same-sex marriage expresses concern about the well-being of children who are denied having both a mother and father. I feel the need to educate him and others who are concerned for the children of same-sex marriages or relationships. Research on this issue has found that children raised by same-sex parents develop and adjust just as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents. In 2002, the American Psychiatric Association released a position statement that optimal development for children is not based on the sexual orientation of the parents, but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults. My partner and I are the loving same-sex parents of a child and are very committed to his emotional, physical, spiritual and social well-being. He is surrounded by friends and family who love him and who accept and support his family. My greatest concern regarding the well-being of our son is that his exposure to biased and intolerant opinions and attitudes regarding family diversity will cause him to doubt himself and the validity of his family.

On Friday there was an opinion piece in the Toronto Star that was written by Matthew Eaton-Kent, 17 years old, a grade 11 honour student and an avid athlete. He lives with his two moms, 14 year old sister, two dogs and one cat in Halton Hills just outside of Toronto. I am going to read part of his submission:

That's how it has always been in my family. One of my mother's celebrates Mother's Day while the other celebrates Father's Day. Sure, it was a bit awkward at school but it didn't make my family any less of a family. In fact we kids thought it was a great way to recognize both of our moms.

However, there is something that makes my family different from a lot of families. The difference is that my parents have never been married. The reason my parents have never been married is not because they don't want to but because, by law, they couldn't. Their relationship was not recognized because marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.

It has been very hurtful to my parents, the gay community and believers in human rights that there has been so much opposition to same-sex marriage. It's been hurtful to my sister and me, too. Very hurtful!

Personally I am perplexed by the extreme opposition to changing the definition of marriage so it can include unions between two people, any two people. As someone born into a generation of political correctness and void of any blatant racism, sexism or xenophobia, it is hard to deal with the hateful nature of the opponents of same-sex marriage.

I am not sure why they don't view the love of my parents as equal to the love between two people of the opposite sex. If they question the commitment, they should note the 27 years my parents have spent together and the way they have cherished my sister and me.

I find a lot of the hate and opposition comes from many of the institutions that promote peace, love and understanding. Some churches have fought the right of same-sex couples to marry. I wish they would look back in history to a time when religious freedom was jeopardized. People who were historically persecuted are all too willing to be prejudiced, all in the name of God.

I am a teenager growing up in an era of equality, an era where blacks are equal to whites, where a man is equal to a woman. This era should include same-sex marriage and my parents. All of us are made in the image of God, are we not?

As we participate in the debate and as we deal with the legislation, we, as members of Parliament, have an opportunity to send a message to our fellow Canadians. That message is that people like Matthew Eaton-Kent, 17, and his 14 year-old sisters and all those other people in Canada who have felt stigmatized and discriminated against are welcome to our inclusive Canada.

This debate is about nothing more and nothing less. Are we, as Canadians, ready to step forward and become an inclusive country, not a tolerant country where we put up with others, but an inclusive country where we recognize and embrace each other's differences?

[Committees of the House, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on citizenship issues.

In November 2004, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked for recommendations from all committees regarding the prior parliamentary review of order in council appointments falling under their mandate, and this report lays out a procedure on how this can be accomplished.

The committee has adopted a motion that calls on the government to develop a transparent and accessible standing committee review process for all government appointments which establishes skills based criteria for appointments and requires each nominee to demonstrate that their skills meet the established criteria.

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-37, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act.

Consumers will no doubt welcome a bill designed to give them an easy, effective way to curtail intrusive telemarketing. Many may turn to the do not call list as a means to preserve their privacy.

But what about the impact of this bill on the telemarketing industry? What about its impact on the call centres that provide jobs for Canadians? If this bill is such good news for consumers, does it spell bad news for the industry?

Canada has become one of the key locations for call centres. Canada's established reputation in the call centre industry is due to its highly skilled, multilingual personnel. Other advantages include excellent telecommunications infrastructure, competitive labour costs and overall lower business costs.

Many companies have located their call centres in Canada to take advantage of these opportunities. According to a 2004 customer contact centre study, there are more than 6,000 call centres in Canada employing 360,000 call centre workers. Between 2002 and 2003, an estimated 128 customer contact centre deals or expansions were made in Canada, creating 40,000 new jobs.

Are these jobs at risk if the CRTC implements a national do not call list? To find an answer to that question, I think it is important that the House understand the changing nature of the call centre industry. I would like to review the difference between outbound and inbound telemarketing.

Some call centres make so-called cold calls to potential customers, customers with whom no previous relationship exists. As I am sure my colleagues who have ever received a call from such a telemarketer will appreciate, these salespeople go through many no responses before they get a yes. That is the nature of cold call marketing. They must make many calls where the answer is negative before they find someone on the other end of the line to answer that they are interested in the product or service being offered.

The chances of getting a yes improve significantly if these outbound sales people are working on a list that does not include the people who explicitly state that they do not want to be called. This is an effective way to reduce the number of unsuccessful calls and thereby increase the efficiency and productivity of the people in the outbound sector of the telemarketing industry.

In fact, the Canadian Marketing Association itself sees the creation of a national do not call list as a preferable form of regulation to the alternatives.

For example, under the current regulation, individual telemarketing companies must maintain their own do not call lists. This current system makes no one happy. Telemarketers are not happy because maintaining such a list is an administrative expense. Consumers are not happy because even if they register on one company's list, they are still going to be pestered by scores of other telemarketing companies.

The creation of a national do not call list will present a more cost effective and efficient way of regulating the industry. Consumers will opt into it. Telemarketers will pay to subscribe to it, thus supporting its maintenance.

There are also significant changes taking place in the call centre industry, which make the do not call list approach well timed. A transition to inbound calling is underway. Call centres for this new kind of telemarketing are called customer relationship management contract centres. These call centres make up the vast majority of the industry today. This fast growing sector consists of customer order and catalogue sales, assistance for online sales and service centres for handling inbound calls.

The bill before us would have no impact on inbound calls.

Perhaps it is useful to consider what has happened to the industry in the United States, where a national do not call registry has been in effect for more than a year.

In the United States, the percentage of outbound calls from call centres as a total of their business has been decreasing for several years, since 1998, in fact, five years before the passage of do not call legislation. The percentage of inbound calls has been increasing.

A similar trend has occurred in Canada, with 90% of Canadian contact centres having an inbound focus while only 10% are focused on outbound calls. The nature of the call centres in Canada has already changed.

I believe we will see this trend continue once the CRTC puts in place a national do not call list. The call centres will be more focused on giving the people at the other end of the telephone line better service for something they already have rather than making cold calls to try to persuade them to buy something new. I believe this is a much more stable business case on which to create jobs.

We want a regulatory environment where consumers have more control over who contacts them. We want a regulatory environment where a telemarketer that implements a well developed business plan will be able to succeed. That is the balance that is struck in the bill.

I encourage the House to support this legislation.