Anita Neville

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to rise today to speak out on the ongoing labour dispute between CBC and the Canadian Media Guild. I cannot stress enough the importance of restoring regular CBC programming to our airwaves as soon as possible. I applaud the hard work of the Minister of Labour and Housing to facilitate the negotiations.

The role that CBC fulfills is quite singular and the work stoppage is being felt across the country. The lockout has left a void in Canadian radio and television. Canadians, both in my constituency of Winnipeg South Centre and elsewhere, have made it quite clear that they want to see an end to this lockout immediately. Workers in my community ask for fairness and respect as employees.

I ask the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to allow the workers to do their work while the negotiations continue. End this lockout now, for the truth is that all Canadians are being locked out.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the government has taken many important steps on the international scene to address the whole issue of trafficking. Certainly, agreeing to the protocol in 2002 has been an important first step. There is an international labour convention that has a number of instruments touching on the forced labour and minimum ages for employment.

It is important that we remain vigilant as a government, and that we engage in all international forums that provide the opportunity for it. We have a number of both not for profit and government bodies actively engaged in this area. It is incumbent upon us all to work together to address this matter in a vigilant and aggressive manner.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to speak to Bill C-49. I want to take the opportunity to recap some of the items in the bill that relate particularly to vulnerable persons.

We have heard some very eloquent testimony here this afternoon on some of the situations that young people in this country find themselves in. The message that Bill C-49 sends is both strong and clear. It sends the message that the full force of the criminal law will be brought to bear on those who seek to take advantage of those who are indeed the most vulnerable among us.

We know that the crime of human trafficking disproportionately impacts on vulnerable people, particularly women and children who are preyed upon, exploited and abused for the profit of others. About 98% of those forced into commercial sexual exploitation are women and children. They are often lured through false promises of employment and working conditions that would benefit them and their families. This type of exploitation runs contrary to the very essence of who we are as Canadians and what we value: equality, liberty and justice.

Bill C-49 would strengthen our legal framework to combat trafficking by creating three new criminal offences. These offences directly address the very heart of this terrible crime of exploitation.

The main offence of trafficking in persons would prohibit anyone from recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person in order to exploit or facilitate the exploitation of that person. It carries the Criminal Code's strongest punishment, up to life imprisonment, accordingly reflecting the abhorrent nature of this crime, the impact it has on its victims, and importantly, society's condemnation.

As I indicated, exploitation is at the very heart of this crime and Bill C-49 properly acknowledges this fact by making it a key element of the offence. This approach is important. It reflects the international community's understanding of human trafficking and more importantly, squarely addresses the very behaviour that targets the most vulnerable among us. Bill C-49 proposes to create two additional offences providing law enforcement with an expanded ability to address the full range of conduct involved in human trafficking.

The second offence would prohibit anyone from profiting from the misery of others. Bill C-49 would make it an offence to receive a financial or other material benefit knowing that it resulted from the trafficking in persons. This offence would be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

The third offence would criminalize the withholding or destroying of travel or identity documents in order to commit or facilitate the trafficking in persons. This is an integral response to trafficking because we know that traffickers often withhold such documents in order to maintain control over their victims in essence to ensure that victims' vulnerability is perpetuated.

Canada continues to be in the vanguard of nations in the global struggle against injustice and inequality. I am pleased to note that Canada has recently ratified the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. This ratification underscores our commitment, both domestically and internationally, to protect children from all forms of exploitation including trafficking.

Bill C-2, which received royal assent in July, further underscores this commitment. Bill C-2 builds upon already expansive criminal law protections and offers even greater protections for children and other vulnerable persons through enhanced penalties for those crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children and through expanding the use of testimonial aids to children and other vulnerable persons.

The government has an ongoing and strong commitment to the protection of the vulnerable and I believe that Bill C-49 is a further step in the right direction. I understand that the whole of government's approach to trafficking reflects the international community's approach to human trafficking, namely, to prevent trafficking, protect its victims and prosecute the offenders. A working group has been tasked with the development of a federal strategy and that work, I believe, is currently underway. Bill C-49 is an important part of this comprehensive approach and it will help us accomplish these prevention, protection and prosecution objectives.

I appreciate that Bill C-49 represents one component of a larger federal response to this issue and supports as well the government's numerous activities to combat trafficking in persons in all its forms. These include, for example, partnering with members of civil society to develop the capacity to properly respond to the needs of victims of this terrible crime. I also understand that the government has been active in developing prevention and awareness materials and in delivering training seminars on the dangers of human trafficking.

I, along with most members of the House, support all of these efforts. Bill C-49 is a critical step toward better addressing human trafficking in all its manifestations, both domestically and internationally. It proposes welcomed criminal law reforms that will enable Canada to continue to show global leadership on the protection of the vulnerable. I hope all members of the House will strongly support this bill. It is an important one for our communities.

[Simon Wiesenthal, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to pay tribute to the late Simon Wiesenthal, the famed Nazi hunter who died last Tuesday at the age of 96.

Mr. Wiesenthal was a prisoner in the Mauthausen death camp in Austria when it was liberated in 1945. Following its liberation, he made it his life's work to track down those individuals responsible for the Holocaust. Not only did he seek justice for the victims of the Holocaust, but he was truly a voice for those who could not speak. Often called the conscience of the Holocaust, his efforts helped bring more than 1,100 Nazi war criminals to justice.

Today the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, headquartered in Los Angeles, continues the work started by him. It continues to strive to eliminate anti-Semitism, as well as other forms of tolerance in today's world.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Wiesenthal, his accomplishments and his legacy.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague behind me has said that is what is known as a leading question. I think the member himself has in fact answered the question.

I believe that there is quite clearly a distinction in this legislation between a civil marriage and a religious marriage, and the sacrament of marriage. What we have heard and what we have learned is that many religious organizations wish to bestow the sacrament of marriage upon those same sex marriages. Those that do not wish to are not required to.

What we are speaking of here today is the extension of civil marriage to couples of same sex.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the strength of my party, of this great party of ours, is the ability to respect the diversity of opinion. As I said in my comments, this is a difficult issue for many people. For me it is a fundamental right, there is no question about it, but I respect the right of my colleagues to make the choice based on their faith, their experiences and their views of the charter. That is, as I say, the strength of this great party of ours.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak to this important bill, the civil marriage act, and I do so for the first time in Parliament.

As a member of the legislative committee to deal with Bill C-38, along with my colleagues I have listened to the many presentations intended originally to provide technical assistance to the committee. But many clearly did enter into the debate on the merits of the bill.

I have also listened to the many comments from my constituents and indeed from Canadians across the country. I understand that this is a difficult issue for many and I respect their views. Many in my riding support this bill and many indeed are opposed.

My role as a member of Parliament is to consider and balance competing interests in the national context and accordingly cast my vote. I understand that some may oppose my view and that it may cost me support. This is a democracy and I accept that.

I want to indicate today on the record my support for this legislation and the reasons for my support. I support Bill C-38 because it is consistent with my support for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is consistent with my faith and it is consistent with my views of what family is about.

The three aspects of the issue I want to speak to are those of principle, reason and practicality.

The principle most clearly involved here is one of equality as provided under the charter. The existing definition of marriage, as determined by the courts in eight provinces and one territory now, discriminates unreasonably and unnecessarily with regard to same sex couples. That there are objections to this view is not surprising.

Yet as has been cited, over the course of human history every advance in equality has been resisted by powerful elements of the community. Whether it was the abolition of slavery in the first half of the 19th century, the extension of the franchise to men who were not property owners in the latter part of the 19th century, the enfranchising of women in the early 20th century, or the coming of the welfare state in the mid-20th century, the objection has always been similar.

Ending slavery, it was argued, would destroy the natural social order, create economic havoc and create an artificial equality between superiors and inferiors. Enfranchising men without property would imperil the existing political order, while enfranchising women would destroy the family and cause women to lose their femininity. Creating a broad system of social supports was simply dismissed or denounced as socialism or, worse, as pure communism.

In short, one is hard pressed to think of any major advancement of human freedom or equality which has not in its time been denounced by someone, and often by those most privileged in society.

The second is a matter of reason as opposed to fear. It has been argued that this bill will somehow directly or indirectly pose threats to those religious bodies that do not as a matter of faith or doctrine approve of same sex marriage. If this were a reasonable fear it would be compelling, but is it reasonable?

As things now stand, no religious authority is compelled to marry persons who fail to meet the requirements of that particular religion. Some, as we know and as we have heard here, will not sanction the remarriage of divorced persons. Yet even though the state sanctions the remarriage of divorcees, the state has never remotely suggested that ecclesiastical authorities are under some obligation to do so and would or could or might face retribution if they failed to do so.

Similarly, the state has long sanctioned divorce itself, yet when has the state ever said, suggested or implied that religious bodies that do not sanction divorce must do so because the state does so? In a country with long and deepening traditions of religious toleration, the suggestion that some religious bodies would face retribution over this issue is, I believe, fearmongering of the worst sort.

Third, it is a matter of practicality. The fact is that same sex marriage, as I have already noted, is now legal and occurring daily and routinely in nine jurisdictions in this country.

That is the case and will remain the case, yet Canadian society seems to be carrying on in the usual way. People go to work. They read newspapers and watch TV. They have and go to parties. They worship God in their own way. There is no rioting in the streets and no unravelling of the social order. In short, people generally and married couples in particular, same sex or opposite sex, are getting on with their normal lives with neither fear nor rancour, nor, let it be noted, often with much concern about what goes on in this House.

Those opposite might wish to address how, if their wishes were to prevail, they would deal with the thousands of same sex couples who are now legally and legitimately married under the laws of their own provinces. An authoritarian government, be it of the right or the left, might not hesitate to impose retroactive legislation to turn back the clock. Is that what those opposite would do if they had power? As with all change, there are those who will fear the worst. I count myself with those who believe in the innate decency and goodwill of our compatriots.

We have heard much about the sanctity of the family and the imperative to preserve the underpinnings of the traditional family as it is defined by some. If I may be personal, I too want to speak of the importance of the family, of a family embracing and supporting all within it, of a family where all members have equal rights and equal opportunities. Like many in this House, some of my best learning has been from my own children.

I have held or sought elected office for almost 20 years. I have been involved in decision making on a number of matters relating to same sex couples, whether it be the extension of benefits or rights, or privileges and opportunities in the workplace.

In 1995, while seeking a seat in the Manitoba legislature, I was being urged by others to stay away from the issue of the day involving the extension of rights to gay and lesbian people because it might affect a byelectoral outcome, at which point my youngest daughter said to me, “Does that mean if I have a child who is gay, you would love it less?”. Needless to say, I stepped up to the plate at that time and it is in part why I support the legislation today. I do it for our children and our children's children, to ensure that all of our children have the full benefits and rights of citizenry in this great country of ours.

I recall the words of one of the parents from PFLAG, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who said, “The rights and responsibilities and freedoms of my straight son should be the same as that of my gay son”. He went on to say, “I find it unfair that there has always been a possibility for my adult straight son to be married, but not my gay son”.

I am proud to be part of the debate here today. I am proud to be a Canadian, and indeed a Canadian parliamentarian, supportive of this legislation, as we table and vote on this landmark legislation for our country this evening.

[Fighting Anti-Semitism Together, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the initiative of Tony Comper, CEO of BMO Financial Group, and co-founder along with his wife Elizabeth, of the coalition FAST, Fighting anti-Semitism Together. Mr. and Mrs. Comper have joined along with 21 other non-Jewish Canadian business leaders at a most important time, as the year 2004 produced an all-time high of 857 reported incidents of anti-Semitism in Canada.

Further to speaking out against the scourge of anti-Semitism, FAST will also attempt to educate young people about the evils of anti-Semitism and bigotry in general by establishing an educational initiative for 10 to 14-year-olds called “Choose your Voice”.

It is one thing when members of the Jewish community speak out against anti-Semitism and bigotry, but it resonates much more when non-Jews decide to attack the problem. I ask my colleagues in the House to join with me and wish the members of the group well in their initiative and their fight against anti-Semitism.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. This is an important issue for the Great Lakes and I should have acknowledged that, as well as acknowledged the presence of other interested members in the House.

The immediacy of the Devils Lake decision affects those of us from Manitoba and as we can see by the presence in the House tonight of so many members from Manitoba, we are very concerned about the immediacy of the decision.

The government at the moment is negotiating hard to come to some resolution on this issue. I am not privy to all of the details but what I do know is that there are intense negotiations ongoing at the moment to resolve this in the interests of both countries. I think that would be the best solution to this issue.

[Devils Lake Diversion Project, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the Boundary Waters Treaty is not honoured today, a treaty that has been in place since 1909, its effectiveness would be certainly in question and future issues that come to the fore on either side of the border would be called into question as to whether they in fact should be referred to the IJC.

This is an important issue, not only for Manitoba, Lake Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay water basin but it is an important precedent that could have an impact right across the country.