Andrew Telegdi

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the government on finally coming out with a piece of legislation that in some ways goes back as far as the Le Dain Commission report which was 30 years ago. For all the people who are critics of the concept of decriminalization, this issue has been debated for far too long. I wish to congratulate the government for finally moving on this issue.

Let me go back 30 years when people who were charged with possession of marijuana would end up being incarcerated. They would end up losing their jobs and would have a criminal record that would follow them for the rest of their lives. This is a heavy price to pay for a young person trying to start out in life.

We have had hypocrisy around this issue. All we have to do is look at the former Prime Minister of this country who acknowledged having smoked marijuana, a former minister of justice who said that he has, in the past as a young individual, smoked marijuana, a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, acknowledged having used marijuana and the present President of the United States has also had some indulgence with drugs.

It is critical that we as a legislative body who want to have credibility with the young people in our country modernize the law. We should finally act on something that goes back 30 years and was put forward by the Le Dain Commission.

If I go back 40 years, and I hate dating myself, one of the favourite programs that we used to watch was The Untouchables with Eliot Ness. The reason I mention it is because at that time the Americans were dealing with a prohibition on alcohol. That prohibition on alcohol ended up spawning organized crime in the United States to the extent that it had not been spawned before. There were all sorts of organized cells right across the country involved in criminal activity. They were producing illegal alcohol which gave a tremendous boost to organized crime.

I believe that in any drug strategy that we undertake, one of the underlying pillars must be to ensure that organized crime is not in a position to profit from it. We know of the kind of destabilization when organized criminals get involved in the trafficking of drugs. I only have to point to what is happening in Colombia where the government is actually destabilized. I only have to point to Afghanistan and how drug activity ended up funding the Taliban. Often drug trafficking funds not only organized crime but terrorism as well.

By updating our legislation on the possession of marijuana, are we saying, as the opposition would have us say, that we are recommending its use, and that we are promoting it? No, we are not saying that any more than by having control on alcohol are we saying that we are promoting its use.

One thing we have learned as a society is that for our laws to be respected, they must have legitimacy in the population to which they apply. For too long and too many elections politicians have ignored what happened with the Le Dain Commission report and every other report that followed it. We have in place a law which criminalizes many young people. We have a law that is, in many cases, unevenly enforced across this country. Clearly, that is wrong. The law should be equal whether it is on the west coast, the east coast, central Canada, or in urban or rural areas.

The government must expand its involvement in the whole area of education through the national drug strategy. We have learned one thing in the last couple of decades and I will use tobacco as an example. Education on the harmful effects of cigarettes has resulted in a real reduction of tobacco products.

I believe that this law does not go far enough. I would like to see it go further. I would like to see government being responsible for quality control. If we do not have quality control, then we might be passing that on and allowing criminal elements to decide on the quality of the product.

The way we regulate alcohol could be a good model. There is no question that alcohol consumption has some negative social impacts. We all know that. We have people who end up in detox centres. We have people who become alcoholics. At least we have some resources, when we collect taxes, to deal with some of those problems. We can fund those problems along with some of the fallout from those problems. Unfortunately, that does not exist in the current bill.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that we have moved in the right direction. We have done something that will decrease much of the clogging that we have in the courts, and where police resources, which are scarce and stretched, could be put to better use.

It is time we had this piece of legislation. We must commit ourselves as a federal government to work with the provinces to put in place an education program for people who use marijuana so that they may understand the possible negative impacts and that we as a society also move in that direction.

[Brewing Industry, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada' s small breweries have been winning international quality awards for years. Their product variety and quality is exceptional. Their industry has as much potential as the Canadian wine industry had 10 years ago.

In 1984 there were only two small brewers in Canada. Today, my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo alone is home to two small breweries: Brick Brewery and Lion Beer Factory, with 85 more located in large and small communities across the country. They have added 2,000 jobs to Canada's brewing industry.

To promote more jobs in this sector, I ask the government to embrace in this year's budget the finance committee's recommendation from last year that states, “To reduce the excise tax for Canadian small brewers by 60% to achieve parity with U.S. small brewers”.

[Dr. Burton C. Matthews, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of a great Canadian, Dr. Burton C. Matthews, who passed away on January 2 of this year.

From 1970 until 1981 Dr. Matthews guided the University of Waterloo through a period of substantial growth and development into one of the most respected universities in the country. Dr. Matthews was dedicated to the pursuit of academic excellence. After stepping down as the president of the University of Waterloo, he was the chair of the Ontario Council on University Affairs. In 1983 he was selected as the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Guelph until his retirement in 1988.

To his wife Lois, his sons David and Tom and their families, and his brothers Jim and George, I offer my sincere condolences on their great loss.

I thank Dr. Matthews for his years of continuous commitment to shaping the minds of future generations and for challenging those who knew him to be the very best they could be. His legacy will live on in the lives of the many people he touched.

[Remembrance Day, November 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, November 11 is Remembrance Day. On Remembrance Day we express our greatest respect and gratitude to those Canadians who over the years served so that we could live in a free and democratic country.

Many thousands of those heroic men and women sustained life-altering wounds or made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the rights and freedoms we enjoy today.

The most profound testament to their sacrifices is the civil liberties and fundamental freedoms all Canadians enjoy and which are now secured in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charter, which provides all Canadians with the same rights, is the greatest legacy of our veterans. Let us honour them by ensuring all our laws reflect not just the word but also the spirit of the charter.

[The Canada Labour Code, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting in favour of the motion. I inadvertently rose the wrong way on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion which was negatived on the following division:)

[Justice, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Violent hate crimes targeting gays and lesbians are all too common in Canada. Today the House will vote on the inclusion of sexual orientation and hate propaganda laws along with existing grounds of race, colour, religion and ethnic origin.

Will the minister confirm his support for Bill C-250 and confirm as well that particularly with the Liberal amendment passed in the House earlier this year, the bill fully protects religious freedoms and religious texts such as the Bible, the Koran or the Torah?

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that when we are dealing with rights and equality we cannot pick and choose. As soon as we get into that game we do not have equality and we do not have an end to discrimination.

I am not sure at what point the Alliance will embrace the charter but I can say that I strongly believe Canadians have embraced the charter. Let us make no mistake, the courts and the charter are under attack. Some people do not like it but I think there are a lot more Canadians ready to stand and defend it than there are to tear it down. However at some point in time I think they will embrace the charter because their constituents will have embraced the charter. I think that is the direction that we are heading.

It is important to remember that we cannot pick and choose who gets equality. Canada is a collection of minorities. At any one particular time we might be on the majority side in terms of opinion but the next day we could be in a minority position that we represent. It is the courts that will create that fairness and interpret rights, not the politicians. The politicians are not judges.

If we were to look at the segregation in the United States we would see that all sorts of politicians made a career on the basis of discrimination, such as George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and the list goes on and on.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for London--Fanshawe.

Since this is a debate that is taking place across the country right now I would caution that we take it easy on the rhetoric. Referring to people as jackboots of fascisms is totally inappropriate. As a matter of fact it trivializes the sufferings of millions and millions of victims who have actually suffered the jackboots of fascism under Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and other dictators.

Having said that, I certainly want to pay tribute to my parents: my stepfather, who survived the Holocaust as well as a Communist dictatorship; my mother, who was a Catholic and who actually had the guts to marry a Jew.

I also pay tribute to Buddy Recalma who died around the end of last year in Qualicum, British Columbia. Buddy Recalma was an hereditary chief who he gave me a gift which I try to wear at times when we are dealing with issues of human rights. That gift is my lapel pin, which was to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. Buddy Recalma was a survivor of the residential schools. He was a victim of policy by the government and the churches to commit cultural genocide against our first nations.

We are also talking about things like religious freedom. Let me say that I had two wonderful examples in my life. One was Joseph Mindszenty who was a Catholic bishop when he was imprisoned by the Germans. He was made an archbishop and was jailed by the Communists. It was not until the Hungarian revolution that he was freed. Eventually he was made a cardinal.

The second was Bishop Laszlo Tokes who stood up against the tyranny of the Ceausescu regime in Romania and he helped to make that dictatorship fall.

We are talking about an evolving society that changes. Back in 1692 we had the Salem witch hunts. Looking at Canada's history, we had the cultural genocide against the first nations. We also had the Asian Exclusion Act, the Chinese head tax and the internment of Ukrainians and Japanese. We also had a policy of non-immigration for the Jews. We had an Immigration Act that was not repealed until 1976 when we removed the colour barrier to immigration to this country.

I mention those things because I think it is that history that resulted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being enacted in Canada on April 17, 1982. I think what is so critically important for members of the House to understand is that by passing the constitution we have a constitutional democracy instead of a parliamentary democracy, notwithstanding the fact that we have the notwithstanding clause in the constitution. Under fundamental freedoms it talks about the freedom of conscience and religion. Under section 15, the equality rights section of the charter, it is critical for people to understand what it says.

Section 15 states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Given the history of this country, it is important to understand that we have matured. We recognize that when we are dealing with the issue of rights, the determination of human rights and civil liberties is left with the courts.

I want to read subsection 52.1 of the Constitution Act. It 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 inconsistency, of no force or effect.

That is critical because we are saying that instead of having rights determined by the popular will at the time, it is determined by our laws in our courts. I can tell members that the Chinese head tax was very popular in its time. The internment of Japanese members was very popular in its time. There were all sorts of politicians who made a career out of fostering hatred and were very successful at it.

When I say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the document that rules on this question, it is important that we all understand it because it is one of the foundations of Canadian society.

It is amazing that young people do not have the same kind of problem as older people have with this concept. As a matter of fact, they look to the charter and they look to our courts. In some ways they look upon us in Parliament as being irrelevant, and that is very sad.

Tomorrow we will be dealing with another piece of legislation, the hate propaganda bill. Tomorrow we will be voting to lend the protection of the legislation that we have on hate crimes and put it into the Criminal Code so that the people who are now victimized, a very vulnerable group, will be afforded the protection of the law that we afford to other areas, such as ethnic origins, religion, colour and nationality.

It is interesting that some of the same debates are taking place in the United States of America. It was not until just recently that the supreme court struck down Texas sodomy laws. It is amazing because 17 years before that, the supreme court ruled the other way; 17 years later, the supreme court saw the need to strike down that law.

When we talk about discrimination and hate crimes against gays, we have to understand that we are dealing with a vulnerable group in our society. Maybe the member for Burnaby--Douglas does not look that vulnerable but there are people in this country and on this continent who are killed for no other reason than their sexual orientation, and this is no joking matter.

I will conclude in a very real way. We are dealing with an issue that is causing us some discomfort, but if we think back about 40 years ago when we were dealing with the segregation in the United States of America, the courts had the courage to stand and strike down segregation. We had police dogs attacking blacks. We had the Ku Klux Klan attacking blacks. I am sure all of us, especially in my age group, remember that, but let us not forget that it was on September 15, 1963 that the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, killing four pre-teen girls. America was in flames. Within months the President of the United States was assassinated.

In our Canadian way, yes, we have strong words, yes, we have strong feelings but we have to understand that discrimination has no place in a country that is so very proud of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the last petition is from the rural route mail couriers. The petitioners call upon Parliament to allow for collective bargaining and to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, June 13th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography.

The petitioners call on Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that raw materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.