Paul Zed

[Health Care, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the establishment of the Medical Education Training Centre at the Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation in Saint John. We must ensure that this school is established immediately so enrolment can commence in the fall of 2008.

There is widespread bipartisan support for this project, from New Brunswick health care workers, from the Moncton, Miramichi and Fredericton hospital authorities and from Premier Shawn Graham, who supports the immediate establishment of this school.

Currently, there is an acute shortage of doctors in New Brunswick. The Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation in Saint John is a national leader for health care and a centre of excellence. It is the natural place for the establishment of our medical school.

I once again urge the Minister of Health and the federal government to provide funding that will help make this project a success. By working together as a team in Saint John, we can build a stronger community.

[February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his kind remarks and also publicly acknowledge the members for Fredericton and Miramichi and the other members of the Liberal caucus in the House of Commons. The members for New Brunswick Southwest and Fundy Royal have also expressed an interest in this file.

As the member quite properly pointed out, this is not a partisan issue. We are all working together in the community.

My understanding was that the money was going to come from the Canada strategic infrastructure fund. It was allocated in the 2006 budget and there were no funds available until March 2007 but the new 2007 fiscal year begins in April.

If the monies are not available in that fund, could my hon. colleague let the people of Atlantic Canada, and specifically the people of Saint John and New Brunswick, know where their tax dollars are going to be reinvested? From which fund does the government intend to move forward with this project and how quickly would that happen?

[February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my question today is a follow up to my question in the House of Commons on October 5, 2006 when I had the opportunity to ask the government when it would fulfill its commitment to fund the Saint John Harbour cleanup.

Each and every day in Saint John, 16 million litres of raw sewage is pumped into our harbour, raw sewage that flows through open creeks and travels through school properties. It even includes waste from the Saint John Regional Hospital.

In this day and age, anywhere in Canada, or in the world for that matter, it is unacceptable. This is a public health issue, an environmental issue, a quality of life issue, a tourism issue and an economic development issue. We cannot continue to dump our untreated waste into the harbour.

As the official opposition critic for cities and communities, clean water and waste water treatment are some of the major concerns that we will continue to pursue.

We have been working as part of a team in Saint John to get Saint John Harbour cleaned up and funded. We have made some progress. Our approach began in 2004 as a direct request from the City of Saint John Council which undertook a waste water study and put it forward with the waste water treatment plan.

On March 27, a trilateral agreement for $8.5 million was announced by the City of Saint John, the provincial government and the federal government through the municipal rural infrastructure fund. I do not believe this is the appropriate program to fund this project due to its large dollar size.

More recently, this past fall, within 24 hours of being sworn in as New Brunswick's premier, Shawn Graham delivered a signed memorandum of understanding on harbour cleanup to the City of Saint John outlining the Province of New Brunswick's commitment to one-third of the cost of harbour cleanup.

The memorandum of understanding represents a commitment from the provincial government of $26.6 million. It is my understanding that the funding for this project will come through the Canada strategic infrastructure fund.

Budget 2006 renewed this program. I have met with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and he has assured me that the federal government will live up to its commitment of funds for the Saint John Harbour cleanup. I take the minister at his word.

If the money for this project is coming from the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, could the minister tell us when we can expect the money to start to flow to our city? If the money is not coming from this program, I would like to know from where it will come and when the citizens of Saint John, New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada can expect the money to be reinvested in this critical piece of community infrastructure for Atlantic Canada. We simply cannot afford any further delay.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully agree with the hon. member on this point. If there were an opportunity or a possibility to create an amendment, that would have been appropriate. I agree with you. However, we are in a situation where that is not procedurally possible and, as a result, we are stuck with this particular resolution. That is the first problem in answer to your question.

The second issue though is that I still wonder how genuine the Prime Minister was when he came forward with this. Frankly, if the whole purpose of the government's caucus was to restore the traditional definition of marriage, then that would have been a simple thing to put forward. I would throw your question back to you, sir, and say that perhaps you should talk to your own caucus and propose your own amendment.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is where the devil is in the details, to be blunt.

If the government were genuine about its intentions, it would not play politics by muddying the waters, by preserving existing same sex marriages when it claims that those were unconstitutional. Members opposite have spent quite a bit of time and have invested a lot of their political capital in alleging that the then government rammed it down everyone's throat and does not create a level playing field for partisanship. It does not allow all of us to move in the best interests of the country.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is part of the dilemma that all of us faced when we looked at this resolution. The first part of the resolution states, “That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage”. If the government had stopped at that point, that might have been palatable to all members, but it goes on to state, “without affecting civil unions”. I read the right hon. Prime Minister's platform and he specifically did not make reference to civil unions. The motion goes on to state “respecting existing same-sex marriages”. This would create three classes of citizens: those prior to the legislation; those governed by Bill C-38; and should the motion pass, those who would be part of a third group of Canadians. All of it would be unconstitutional because different classes of Canadians would be created.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's motion to restore the traditional definition of marriage. I have some very serious concerns about the wording of this motion which I find very vague and misleading.

I would like to turn the attention of the House back to a vote we held in the last Parliament on Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes While this bill contained some proposals that I agreed with, it also sought to do something that I fundamentally disagree with, namely to change the traditional definition of marriage. When that bill came before the House, I voted against it. I voted against it for a fundamental reason, namely, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, marriage as defined between a man and a woman. For me, this is a matter of my own personal faith and conscience.

However, as both a parliamentarian and a lawyer, I believe in the equality of citizenship of all Canadians. This includes providing same gender relationships with the same legal protection and the same benefits under the law as all other Canadians enjoy.

I believe in the separation of church and state. My difficulty with C-38 was that it sought to change the definition of marriage. I fundamentally believe that churches and other religious institutions alone should define marriage. Government, on the other hand, should simply register these relationships or unions. These were some of the reasons that I voted against the legislation in 2004.

Today the Conservative motion we are debating is one which I find to be seriously flawed. As parliamentarians we have to make responsible decisions for our constituents and with our constituents. We have to know what we are voting for and with this motion we do not know. This motion does not define what the government classifies as a civil union for example. It fails to define what rights and protections would be guaranteed in these relationships. If on the one hand the House is voting on a motion to produce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage, how can the proposed law at the same time respect existing same sex marriages?

This is a clear and irresponsible contradiction which I cannot and I will not support. We are all equal before the law. The proposed legislation that the motion calls for would create three classes of citizens in Canada and this is simply unacceptable.

If the government were serious about this issue and not simply playing politics, it would have prepared legislation so that we could study the implications of voting on this motion. It has not done so. This too is unacceptable.

Sadly we have come to expect this type of underhanded approach from the government. It is a government that is dividing the country, pitting one region of the country against another, pitting one group of Canadians against the other. It is a government that is far more interested in crafting policy based on right-wing ideology than on what is best for Canadians.

I find it sad that the government is playing politics with an issue that has been so divisive for Canadians. I believe that the role of the federal government is to unite Canadians from all over the country, not to pit one group of Canadians against the other.

The motion that the government has presented to the House of Commons is divisive. It is vague. It is misleading. Frankly, it is unconstitutional and legally unenforceable.

Let me be clear in conclusion. I support the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, but I will not be a pawn in the hands of the government as it tries to drive a wedge between Canadians. I will not vote for something I have already voted against.

[Fisheries Act, October 18th, 2006]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-358, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (deposit of sewage).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce a bill that is critically important to both my riding of Saint John and also other communities across Canada.

This bill prohibits the deposit of untreated sewage in Canadian waters. It allows for the governor in council to prescribe by regulation how sewage must be treated and the standards that it must meet before it can be deposited in those waters.

Every day in my riding of Saint John more than 16 million litres of raw, untreated sewage flows into the harbour. In Greater Victoria, 127 million litres of liquid sewage is dumped into the ocean daily. In St. John's, Newfoundland, it is 120 million litres. In Halifax, it is 180 million litres.

It is a serious national problem and it is a major public health issue. The dumping of untreated sewage is an unacceptable practice and we have to stop using our oceans as a toilet. Our children deserve clean water.

The bill would ensure that the Government of Canada would take responsibility to restrict the dumping of untreated sewage into waterways that creates a harmful effect on communities, the fishery and the coastal environment.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Points of Order, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in his reply to my question, which I have posed in this House on at least three other occasions, said that it was the first time I had raised this particular question regarding harbour cleanup. I would not want viewers to think that I am not interested in this file, nor would I want the record in any way to reflect that.

I think all members of this House of Commons, regardless of party, are interested in this file. I know that the minister, in the heat of the exchange, would want to make sure that the record was accurate. I can think of three times where I might have already raised the subject of harbour cleanup and the failure of the government to come through with this commitment.

That is my point of order. I wanted this reflected on the record.

[Ports and Harbours, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise about the Saint John harbour cleanup. Yesterday I was pleased to join Premier Shawn Graham when he signed an agreement for this project in Saint John for $26.6 million.

The Liberal premier was able to do in one day what the Prime Minister has been unwilling to do in nine months. If the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick can commit to Saint John harbour cleanup on his first day as premier, how long will it take the Prime Minister to live up to his commitment and to fund this crucial project for our community?