Wendy Lill

[Revenue Canada, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, 90,000 Canadians have recently received letters from Revenue Canada telling them to reapply for the disability tax credit. It could cost between $30 and $120 to get a doctor to agree that they are still legally blind or still have Down's syndrome. This is harassment.

First the CPP disability program is made more restrictive and now the disability tax credit is under fire. Why is the government picking on our most vulnerable citizens? Will it order these harassing letters to be withdrawn? Will it offer these 90,000 Canadians a written apology? Will it commit to real consultation with disability groups on all tax issues?

[The Media, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for the most part journalists are professionals, but to suggest they have no personal opinions would be to say they are not people. Norman Lester is no more, no less.

When media workers start writing a story their experience is brought to bear so we are presented with the facts in an understandable, balanced and unbiased fashion. We want our professional journalists to know what is happening in the world. It makes for better stories and more accurate information. To say they should somehow abandon their rights to free expression because they work for a broadcaster would be wrong.

There is no indication that Norman Lester has ever been a biased journalist. I sincerely hope that the administrative review currently underway at Radio-Canada will look at Mr. Lester's professional work, not attempt to deal with what are appropriate opinions for journalists to hold on their own time.

I call on the government to introduce mandatory complaint mechanisms for all media so Canadians can complain about rampant biased journalism which currently exists. I also call on Radio-Canada to leave Mr. Lester's rights when he is off the job alone.

[Criminal Code, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support Bill C-284 put forward by my colleague, the member for Churchill, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada concerning offences by corporations, directors and officers.

I also wish to acknowledge the great work done on this issue by my leader, the member for Halifax, and by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough.

This bill has been a long time coming before parliament and it has been known by many names: the corporate responsibility act; the workplace safety act; the corporate manslaughter act; and the corporate killing act. However, most people still call it by its original name, the Westray act.

People call this the Westray act in reference to the tragic Westray mine disaster in Stellarton, Nova Scotia. On that day in 1992, 26 miners died when a methane gas explosion tore through the Westray mine. Those 26 deaths, like so many deaths and injuries that occur in the workplace, could have been prevented were it not for the company management practices that deliberately and systematically refused to comply with health and safety regulations.

Mr. Justice Richard's inquest into the Westray mine disaster was very clear on this point: it was the wilful decision of the mine's manager to ignore and indeed encourage violations of safety regulations that led to the fatal gas explosion.

The miners tried to complain about the unsafe working conditions, but their complaints were ignored and they were threatened with dismissal unless they kept quiet.

I believe that it is time that we in this House finally complete our criminal law by making it a criminal offence for an employer or a manager to wilfully violate reasonable standards of conduct of safety or safety of workers in their care thus causing an employee's death.

It has always struck me as strange that in Canada people are allowed under the law to wilfully create the conditions that causes someone's death because of their status as a boss, director or manager. The current criminal code lets them escape responsibility for the safety of their employees. Why is that?

If we are negligent about the safety of our neighbour and cause their death we would be guilty of manslaughter. If we killed someone by driving drunk, the penalties are justifiably severe. If we cause death as a caregiver in a hospital we may be charged with murder. However, if a manager of a mine, who knows the mine is unsafe and keeps making decisions that keep it unsafe, sends employees into those unsafe conditions and 26 people die, no criminal liability exists in Canada. That is shocking.

Let us not be coy here. That is what is allowed under the law right now.

The case that is used most often when discussing this is the Westray explosion. However the Westray disaster is only the tip of the iceberg in Canada.

Every day Canadians are injured or killed on the job. Every day these accidents happen because the employer refuses to create a workplace that is safe. Every day Canadians are killed because the boss will not pay an extra buck to make sure that safety is in place. Every day our criminal code lets this happen without punishment. Our job as parliamentarians is to stop this fundamental injustice.

I would like to take a minute to pay tribute to an individual who spent most of his life fighting for safe workplaces for working men and women. I am referring to former Canada Labour Congress vice president, Dick Martin, who passed away last week.

Dick started fighting for the rights of workers as a steelworker working for Inco in northern Manitoba. He fought tirelessly for better health and safety. He saw how many of his co-workers at Inco were injured through company or supervisory neglect. He was angry about the fact that thousands of workers were being injured or killed on the job and our nation failed to mourn or act.

Dick was instrumental in having this place declare April 28 as the national day of mourning for Canadians who have died at work. I am so happy that Dick was able to see us mourn for these unnecessary deaths. However I am sad that Dick is not here today to see us pass this bill, a bill that would act to prevent unnecessary workplace death. Dick would be here lobbying like crazy to see this one through.

It is difficult for me to understand why some are opposing the bill. After all it does have a noble and practical objective. Some oppose it because they believe there are jurisdictional problems. To them I say, pass the bill at second reading and we will fix any jurisdictional problems at committee. That is why we have a clause by clause process to look at legislation and to tighten up the technical details.

I wonder if that is the real reason. I would hate to think that anyone in this place would believe that a corporation or a boss should be above the law simply because of status. I hope that all members would condemn that notion.

I have heard from some who oppose the legislation. They believe workers in Canada are protected from dangerous workplaces and predatory actions from bosses because they can always refuse to work. That argument is basically that it is the victim's fault. That argument is not only immoral and offensive, it is also inaccurate.

If we look at what happened in Stellarton, the Westray example clearly shows that the argument is inaccurate. Westray mine was part of the Foord coal seam, a geological structure eloquently called a spider web of coal by Westray survivor Shaun Comish in his book A Miner's Story . As Sean pointed out, the Foord coal seam had already claimed the lives of 244 miners before the explosion in 1992.

Everyone, including the managers, knew that this seam was unstable with constant cave-ins, heavy build-up of explosive coal dust and very prone to methane build-ups. It was a disaster waiting to happen. However, to cut costs and to maximize profits, the safety of the miners was willingly compromised by the company and 26 miners were added to the list of victims at the Foord coal seam.

Why did they still go down in the hole when they knew it was unsafe? It is simple. They had to eat. They had to support their families. They had to pay their bills. That is what working people of Canada have always done. Even when they know their lives are in danger, they have worked.

Before I became a member of parliament, I was a playwright and I had the honour of writing a play called The Glace Bay Miners' Museum based on a story by a writer named Sheldon Currie. It is the story of a young woman who sees her father and brother, then later on her husband and her other brother die in the Glace Bay mines.

It is a wonderful story but much of it is this argument that goes on between two brothers, one named Neil. Neil believed that real men worked above the ground and were farmers or fishermen or played bagpipes. Real men would not crawl in the earth like worms.

The other brother believed instead that real men worked under the ground. He joined the union and worked for better health and safety conditions. He fought for better hours and better pay and to hold management accountable and make it pay for part of the risk that they were taking underground.

At the end of the story both went down in the mine and both were killed at the exact same instant. It is a very sad story, but it is more than just a story.

Thousands of people in Canada do very dangerous work because of necessity. They also do it because they bring massive resources to the surface or from the waters.

Yesterday there was a huge storm in Atlantic Canada. Meteorologists called it a perfect storm. Again it is one of those situations where workers find themselves in the middle of very dangerous situations. In that case they are the masters of their own fortune in that it is their boats and their gear. That is not the case when working for a mine. People are very dependent on management for their safety.

Parliament has a role to play right now and right here to ensure we protect the health and safety of our workers by making sure managers do not escape criminal liability for their actions. Make no mistake, by allowing corporations not to be responsible for killing their workers, we let those 26 miners to die.

In memory of these men and their families, we have the opportunity to correct this situation. We can make corporate directors, managers and supervisors know that they have a legal responsibility not to ignore safety for profit.

We can honour their memory by passing the bill. In doing so we honour the memory of John Bates; Larry Bell; Bennie Benoit, a grandfather; Wayne Conway; Ferris Dewan; Adonis Dollimont; Robert Doyle, only 22 years old; Remi Drolet; Roy Feltmate; Charles Fraser; Myles “Sparkie” Gillis; John Halloran; Randolph House; T.J. Jahn; Laurence James; Eugene Johnson; Stephen Lilley; Michael MacKay; Angus MacNeil; Glenn Martin; Harry McCallum; Eric McIsaac; George Munroe; Danny Poplar; Romeo Short; and Peter Vickers.

Their lives were cut short. They were fathers, grandfathers, husbands, lovers, brothers and friends. They were workers who died in a mine that management knew was unsafe. They are victims and the law failed them. Let us fix the law in their memory.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the Bloc for his comments. I have heard about the bill and the area in question, the Saguenay marine park, and I have to credit the government of Quebec for understanding the importance of that protection and for getting involved immediately and working to protect that area without waiting for a federal act.

However I do not believe that we always can leave the responsibility with the provincial governments. The country is so vast and so precious that we have to make sure there is a federal jurisdiction involved and that we will not have two tier parks and a patchwork quality of environmental legislation across the country. I would worry greatly about that.

Although I admire the work that has been done in Quebec on this issue, I do not believe that it might be the same case across the country.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. I have spoken widely about a very central and valuable environmental resource in my beloved province of Nova Scotia and that is the Gully.

I urge all members in the House to think about their own particular regions and areas that have to be protected and then look very closely at the bill that is in front of us today, Bill C-10, and try to determine if there are in fact enough protections within this document to allow for the ongoing sanctity of the environmental jewels that exist in each one of our ridings in this beautiful country.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-10 at third reading.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the work done by the member for Windsor--St. Clair. He has been a passionate advocate for marine parks and marine conservation.

I am proud to speak to the issue of marine parks but sadly, I cannot say that we support Bill C-10 at the present time. We believe it creates a false sense of security that our valuable natural resources would be protected when in fact we do not believe that is true at this point.

I am from Nova Scotia. We understand the importance of the ocean as a source of economic activity and a valuable resource that needs protection. We desperately need to have marine parks created in my region to protect some incredible natural areas from oil and gas exploration and from the impact of overfishing and bottom dredging that destroys rare and valuable deep coral.

The most obvious example of an area needing protection off Nova Scotia at this point is the Scotia Gully, sometimes called Canada's Grand Canyon. Approximately 260 kilometres off the east coast of Nova Scotia lies the largest underwater canyon on the east coast of North America. This unique marine environment is home to 15 species of dolphins and whales, many species of fish including halibut, cod, redfish, swordfish, tuna, salmon and squid, as well as deep sea corals and other little-known bottom dwelling invertebrate animals.

This diverse ecosystem is currently being threatened by oil and gas exploration off the Nova Scotia coast. Federal and provincial governments have granted over 50 oil and gas exploration licences in an area surrounding the gully. One proposed project lies only five kilometres from the gully's edge; imagine that, five kilometres from the Grand Canyon of our coast. Immediate action must be taken to protect the gully from this and other oil exploration projects. The area needs the protection of a marine park.

Larger than the famous Grand Canyon, Nova Scotia's gully extends to a depth of 1.5 kilometres in some areas and is over 70 kilometres long and 20 kilometres wide. This unique marine ecosystem has long been recognized by the government as an ecologically important area.

In 1992 Parks Canada declared the gully to be a natural area of Canadian significance, while in 1998 DFO designated the area as a pilot marine protected area. However, during the same decade, oil exploration was occurring in the area at an alarming rate. Licences for gas and oil exploration around the gully cover an area of over six million hectares. Current projects are moving closer toward the gully's edge.

The Sable offshore energy project's pipeline runs only 30 kilometres from the gully while the project proposed by Primrose Field is an alarming five kilometres from the edge. Aside from the possible threats from chemical pollution and sedimentation from the projects, the gully is also threatened by acoustic pollution that has the potential to disrupt whale communication.

In order for the gully to be adequately protected, it needs to be designated as a marine protected area under the Oceans Act. A buffer zone surrounding the gully would also help protect the habitat.

The gully is the home of bottlenose whales which appear to remain separate from other populations of the same species and are considered to be genetically distinct from them. These rare whales live in the gully, and a park should protect them. I wish Bill C-10 did.

On top of the threat by drilling, bottom dredging by fishing boats, both domestic and foreign, is also destroying parts of this valuable canyon. Under the current bill before us, this marine park could be created but the threats to the natural heritage of the site would continue.

Do not get me wrong. I want marine parks as do all members of the New Democratic Party but I want equivalent protection for these parks as terrestrial parks. That is why I support the amendments at report stage from our party's environmental critic which would have allowed for real protection of areas like the gully.

Our amendments would have prohibited harmful activities currently allowed under the bill such as bottom trawling, blasting and drilling, building pipelines and using harmful sonar devices. These activities are recognized by all, except the government and the Alliance Party, to be completely incompatible with the intent of marine conservation areas and detrimental to the ecosystems that they are intended to protect.

Sadly, the government saw fit to defeat the amendments of the member for Windsor--St. Clair. Therefore I am forced to oppose the bill at third reading. I am afraid that this party has to say that we will have to continue to work further in other areas with environmental groups to try to strengthen this legislation in days to come.

I am not alone in feeling that a better bill is required. The document “Scientific Consensus Statement” signed by 161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine reserves supports me. The signatories to this document all hold Ph.D. degrees and are employed by academic institutions. I would like to put forward some of the conclusions from this document on what marine conservation areas can do if there is real protection.

If there is real protection with a real marine protection act we could see reserves result in long lasting and often rapid increases in the abundance, diversity and productivity of marine organisms. Marine reserves can reduce the probability of extinction for marine species resident within them. Increased marine reserve size results in increased benefits, but even small reserves have positive effects. Full protection, which usually requires adequate enforcement and public involvement, is critical to achieve this full range of benefits. Marine protected areas do not provide the same benefits as marine reserves.

In the few international studies that have been done which have examined spillover effects, the size and abundance of exploited species increased in areas adjacent to reserves. There is increasing evidence that reserves replenish populations regionally via larval export.

There is increasing evidence that a network of reserves buffers against the vagaries of environmental variability and provides significantly greater protection for marine communities than a single reserve. An effective network needs to span large geographic distances and encompass a substantial area to protect against catastrophes and provide a stable platform for the long term persistence of marine communities.

With the analysis of the best available evidence from scientists around the world, we conclude that reserves or marine conservation areas conserve fisheries and biodiversity. To meet goals for fisheries and biodiversity conservation, reserves must encompass the diversity of marine habitats.

Reserves are the best way to protect resident species and provide heritage protection to important habitats. Reserves must be established and operated in the context of other management tools. Reserves need a dedicated program to monitor and evaluate the impact both within and outside their boundaries. Reserves provide a critical benchmark for the evaluation of threats to ocean communities. Networks of reserves will be necessary for long term fisheries and conservation efforts. Existing scientific information justifies the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central management tool.

Sadly the Liberal government does not seem interested in science. The bill fails to meet the minimum needs to allow for real protection either within the marine parks or in the adjacent areas of the marine parks or as part of a network. It is my sincere hope that the government will return to this matter and fix these problems in the near future.

[Acoa, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of state has actually mentioned that the project is far too big to fit into the tiny federal infrastructure project.

The federal share in the Halifax cleanup alone is about $90 million. The total commitment for infrastructure under the program across Nova Scotia for next year is less than $20.

How will the federal government be able to pay for the project? At this point in time we need $90 million. Where will it come from and when will it happen?

[Acoa, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Mayor Peter Kelly of Halifax wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday asking for one-third federal support for the Halifax harbour cleanup, an essential and long overdue environmental and waste cleanup project.

The project has been in the planning stages for decades and the mayor has been waiting for two years for a real federal commitment. Will the federal government be coming up with at least one-third of the $260 million required so that we can halt the dumping of raw sewage into our beautiful harbour?

[Royal Prerogative of Mercy, October 26th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it has been a wonderful debate. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and who has dug deeply into their own sense of justice and vulnerability and possibly their own experiences with persons with disabilities. They have been honest and caring. I would like to make some comments about what has been said and then read a bit more from a mother of a child very similar to Tracy Latimer in terms of her disabilities and maybe in terms of her joy for life.

The speaker for the government, the first speaker, talked about the various kinds of cases in which clemency may be brought about. I did not find any real comfort in that. I was not sure how he was instructing us in terms of this case, but he did make a point about the fact that he thought the motion was aimed mainly at the victim in this instance. I have to say that I believe the motion is aimed at the millions of people in the country who are suffering from a disability or who are looking after persons with disabilities. There is nothing particularly narrow about the motion. It really does reach out into the hearts of people everywhere.

I was happy with the comments from the member from Calgary on the concept that the general principle the motion is dealing with is extremely important and that is the sanctity of life. He quoted from the preamble to the American declaration of independence, which states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men” and women “are created equal” with certain “unalienable rights”, including the right to life.

He also recognized the heroism of parents of children with disabilities. I have to say that I see it every day in the 24 hour care and the effort that goes into looking after children with disabilities. It is not of course something that people choose to do and possibly is not something that at age 20 they ever thought they would be doing or would ever choose, but the fact is it becomes their lives. Caring for our loved ones, whatever their level of ability, is the core of their lives and let us not think it is anything else. Our lives become a journey of taking care of what is required to look after the people we love. The idea of exercising that difficult compassion is the daily stuff of just doing it and just taking care of people.

I appreciated the comments of the member for Dewdney--Alouette in questioning what happens if others make choices for their children that would end their lives and what it does to the thousands of others who are trying to care for their children. Was the action right or wrong? The court determined that it was wrong. The Supreme Court of Canada finally said it was a case of second degree murder and the minimum sentence is 10 years.

As the member said, when society devalues one we open the door to devaluing many others. We need to send a strong message to constituents that we do value life and not send a conflicting message by granting the prerogative of mercy.

I appreciated the comments of the member for York North about the principle of treating all Canadians equally under the law. How can we, as members of the House, have a hierarchy of values for some? She mentioned the huge pressures on families who are in need of respite care, social services and home care and said that we have to be conscious of those things. She also mentioned the fact that children do have rights but asked if we are not sometimes forgetting them in light of many issues.

I will close with the words of a mother of a daughter who has a disability:

--we cannot lose sight of the fact that murders that are motivated by compassion, the victims almost in every case are vulnerable people--people who are sick, aged, or who have a disability. My daughter will decide when it is time for her to leave this earth--no one else has the right to make that decision for her or to take her life from her.

I appreciate all the comments I have heard in the House and the hundreds of people who have given us strength with their comments over the years on this issue. I believe we have given some very important instructions to the Government of Canada today.

[Royal Prerogative of Mercy, October 26th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize and uphold, in its treatment of requests for the royal prerogative of mercy, the principle that the lives of all Canadians, including the lives of persons with disabilities, must be treated, and be perceived to be treated, equally under the law.

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to move Motion No. M-372 today for debate in the House. The motion asks cabinet to consider carefully the security of persons with disabilities when considering any request for the royal prerogative of mercy.

The motion has a threefold purpose: to provide an opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss an issue which is not yet in the public arena but will be imminently; to give cabinet direction on an issue important to millions of persons with disabilities; and to offer assurances to persons with disabilities and their families that their government is protecting their rights and their lives under the law.

What caused me to write this motion was the announcement last spring from the legal team for Robert Latimer that they would be requesting his early release for the second degree murder conviction of his daughter Tracy.

The Latimer case has achieved such a level of notoriety in Canada by now that I am not sure delving too deeply into the details will serve a great purpose. However I know the effect this crime has had on the thousands of persons with disabilities and their families.

Since that October morning almost eight years ago when Robert Latimer sat his 12 year old daughter Tracy in the cab of his truck, piped in carbon monoxide and gassed her to death, it would be fair to say that all persons with disabilities have been on a rollercoaster ride as they waited to see how the courts of the land would deal with the case.

Thousands of persons with disabilities and those who love them and care for them were watching and waiting as the Latimer case wound its way through the courts. They were waiting and holding their breath, holding their hearts really, to hear with what severity the highest court in the land would judge the murder of one of society's most vulnerable, because the severity of that judgment would send a clear message out to all Canadians about the seriousness of committing a crime against a person with a disability. So they waited and they held their breath.

I remember a witness who came before the disability subcommittee during that long period of waiting said “If Robert Latimer's crime goes unpunished, if it is okay for him to take his daughter's life, then it casts doubt about the meaning of my whole life, which is bound up in 24 hour caring for a severely disabled daughter, and it fills me with great fear”.

I heard from a woman with multiple disabilities who said “What if I have a bad day or a bad month or a bad year? Does that mean that my caregiver may decide that it is the compassionate thing to end it for me?”

These are horrible things to contemplate, yet they are always on the minds of people who are vulnerable. They are much concerned about the fact that it was the father who was getting all of the attention, not the daughter Tracy whose life had been taken.

The Canadian Association for Community Living published the book Our Lives, Our Voices: Families Talk About Lives Worth Living . As stated therein, the book was published because, “We are concerned that in the outpouring of support for mercy for Robert Latimer, there has been little attention to the court evidence about Tracy's joy for life. With a series of stories which families have shared, we wanted to help others to appreciate the value and love that we have for our children”.

In that book one father from Ontario said that the principal reason they are at odds with Robert Latimer is that he placed a lower value on his daughter's life because she was disabled. He had options that he did not pursue and chose to dispense with his daughter as he would a sick farm animal.

These are some of the comments that I have heard and read. They are deeply painful and fearful comments from members of the community of persons with disabilities as they awaited a decision to be handed down from the highest court of the land.

Lo and behold, on January 18, 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction and minimum 10 year sentence for Robert Latimer for the murder of his daughter Tracy. By doing so, it made a very important statement about Tracy Latimer's equality under the law.

With its decision, the supreme court recognized that the charter of rights guarantees to every Canadian the right to life and security of the person and to equal protection under the law, regardless of mental or physical disability.

In its decision, the supreme court recognized that denunciation of unlawful conduct is one of the objectives of sentencing recognized in section 718 of the criminal code.

Denunciation becomes much more important in the consideration of sentencing in cases where there is a high degree of planning and premeditation and where the offence and the consequences are highly publicized so that like-minded people may well be deterred by severe sentences. This is particularly in so far as a victim is a vulnerable person with respect to AIDS, disability or other similar factors.

The minimum sentence of 10 years was upheld for Robert Latimer for taking the life of his daughter Tracy, but unfortunately this painful story does not seem to be over. Although a special request for clemency has not yet been filed, robertlatimer.com, the friends of the family website, has announced that an application for clemency will be coming in the near future.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is actively circulating a petition calling for the release of Robert Latimer under the royal prerogative of mercy section of the criminal code.

My motion today calls upon cabinet to think long and hard about granting any royal prerogative of mercy which will decrease the level of security of persons with disabilities. I believe the real message that cabinet would be sending if it reduces Latimer's sentence is that murdering a person with a disability is not as serious a crime, ergo persons with disabilities are not equal under the law.

We hear a lot about security right now. Security is a very emotionally charged word since the horrifying events of September 11. Do not misunderstand me. I believe we need to increase our airport and border security, but we seem to miss the point of what security means for many people with disabilities.

Security means having access to services, employment, housing and health care, knowing that they will not be blocked at every turn from doing the things that others can do. Security also means not being afraid of being reliant upon others for support, literally for life itself.

The biggest case around this form of security has been the public debate over the conviction of Robert Latimer for murdering his daughter Tracy. This is a case where the media has kept the focus on the criminal, not on the victim. There seems to be a feeling that the life of Tracy Latimer was worth less than our lives because she had a specific medical condition.

The suggestion from a trial judge in Saskatchewan was that the punishment should be two years instead of ten. That is about 20% of what a normal sentence should be. The judge tried to put into law an argument which could have become a precedent that the life of a person with a disability can be discounted like a T-shirt at Zellers on a sales day. I am thankful that the Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow that argument to stand.

The danger now, however, is that there is a movement which says that the trial judge got it right, that the supreme court got it wrong, and that cabinet should grant clemency to Robert Latimer. This movement is not small. As I have already said, it includes such organizations as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which even has its own website extolling the virtues of a loving father.

I do not understand how an organization which uses the motto “The freedom of no one is safe unless the freedom of everyone is safe” does not understand the inherent danger in saying that there should be exceptions in our justice system available for “compassionate fathers who kill their daughters”.

It is not up to me to decide if Robert Latimer loved his daughter. It is not up to me to make a judgment of Tracy's medical condition. It is not up to me to retry any specific case that already has been before the courts. As a matter of fact, elected representatives are the last people who should be trying individual cases.

However as a parliamentarian it is up to me to uphold the law. It is our job as parliamentarians to tell the cabinet our opinion on how the law should be applied when it comes to the specific section of the criminal code dealing with mercy.

The law says that if one is convicted of second degree murder the sentence is life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years. The law does not say unless one is a loving father, unless one's victim has a severe disability, unless one is a good farmer or unless one has good lawyers. As a matter of fact our law is quite devoid of loopholes for murder and I am thankful for that.

If clemency is to be used in the Latimer case, a message is sent to the thousands of caregivers, who vulnerable people rely on for their basic existence, that the consequences for unilaterally deciding to harm someone in a person's care will be different if it is believed it is in that person's best interest.

Our job today is to send a message out to the cabinet room that we should be ever mindful of the real and perceived security needs of people with disabilities, our neighbours who have to rely on others for their daily activities.

A colleague from this place recently asked me why I think that people with disabilities are not already considered fully in this context. I think the record speaks for itself. Our history, even our recent history, shows us that people with disabilities are most often the last considered and the first forgotten in matters of public policy.

We are a society that too often rewards the strong and the loud and forgets the weak and the vulnerable. That is why we in the House of Commons must be their voice. We must remember we had a physical sterilization of this community as a matter of public policy in parts of Canada as recently as 50 years ago.

We have seen recent cuts from the government to income support programs such as CPP disability, to provincial social assistance supports, to the construction of affordable and accessible housing, and to employment programs. The fear that they may be undervalued again, as I believe the Saskatchewan trial judge undervalued Tracy Latimer, is a well founded fear.

In closing, I ask members of the House to speak out in favour of this motion. We need to send Canadians with disabilities a message. We need to say that we have heard them and we will not apply laws that discounts their lives. We need to send a clear message to the cabinet that all Canadians are equal and that as a House of Commons we do not believe that the punishment for taking any life should be diminished because of the ability of the victim.