Dan McTeague

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the passion of that member of Parliament. He is a new member to the House and celebrating his first anniversary.

Considering the comments he has made about the hon. member for Mississauga South, he is definitely mistaken about the integrity of that individual and the integrity of all members on this side. The member knows full well that many of us on this side have taken unpopular positions with our own party in the past. Many of us have suffered consequences such as being thrown off committees. Many of us have continued to fight for what we believe is right.

The opposition members believe in politicizing this issue. If they have any credibility on this issue, it is that they would wrest this issue of marriage to what it is, something that is above partisan consideration.

The member talks about choice. Members of the House make choices each and every day. They represent their constituents, they represent their own values and they represent their own will as expressed by the many constituents who have supported them in the past.

If that member of Parliament is interested in the debate before the House today, in the few minutes that are left to us, I would ask the hon. member this. I would have thought the hon. member would want to at least ensure that we today have a guarantee that religious officials will have an opportunity to continue to practise and to express a belief, a belief which I share, that marriage is important to society as it is to my religion. Is the hon. member prepared for the next battle? While the hon. member believes the choice is here now, in my 12 years of experience, the choice will not end tonight. A battle is to come and the hon. member knows it is based on politics, as he has quite rightly pointed out.

Will the hon. member now move to try to preserve the integrity of our religious institutions which clearly are under threat?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, let the record show that I have always stood firmly, no matter what the consequences were, on any issue.

In order to ensure this issue continues to be debated the next line of defence, which I have very clearly drawn out in my debate, will be by activists across this country. I think the hon. member would want to ensure that members like myself still stand.

Fortunately, I won by a fairly comfortable margin last election, but I did not win it simply because I am who I am. I assure the hon. member that there are people who, regardless of political partisan stripe, want to opine on this issue and who are just as disappointed. There are people within the Liberal Party that I speak to, constituents and people who have been here three or four generations, new Canadians, who are very passionate about this issue.

That has also allowed me to do other things, working on this side. It has allowed me to set up the AIDS initiative in Africa. It has allowed me to work on files like saving the life of Canadians like William Sampson.

This is not a black and white issue. There are some who would like to make it that way. I am not one and I will stand firmly for what is right. I will always wear those things on the sleeve as I walk in the House of Commons.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I know how committed the member for Leeds—Grenville is to this issue and as a new member of Parliament he has taken a very strong stance on this issue. I know how important it was to take that stance. It is one of the reasons he is here.

It is fair to say that what in fact occurred was that we threw the towel in on marriage. We had an opportunity and indeed an obligation. The Prime Minister and justice minister of the day knew full well the resolution of the House of Commons. They chose to ignore and defy that and to go for a pass.

Instead, they said they would not defend marriage, they quit and they allowed a lower court ruling to now effectively permeate all the courts across the country. They would not even look at the issue of civil union. They would ensure this does not become an election issue and they would work around with the odd little word.

I can honestly say the hon. member's question is a good one, but it suggests that the ability to make decisions and make them hold is not here in this Parliament. The question as to whether or not Parliament can be effective is going to be continuously second guessed by either the executive as was the case, or by the judiciary. Let the record be very clear. We failed Parliament and we failed Parliament in 2003 on that decision by capitulating to a lower court ruling which is without precedent internationally.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I must voice an opinion I believe we all share. We have before us a bill proposing to change the definition of marriage to the union of two individuals, from the age-old definition of marriage of the union of two individuals of opposite sexes.

In my nearly 12 years as a member of Parliament I have seen a lot, certainly in terms of the evolution of this issue. After the issue of inclusion was debated in 1981-82, when I was working for a cabinet minister, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed and the Constitution was repatriated, I do not think there was a single member in the House of Commons or a premier who could have one day imagined that we would see a definition in something as fundamental to society as what is now being debated and by some imagination or standard being suggested will pass and pass easily.

Some people will say times change and that is just a pragmatic way of doing things, it is a trend and we have to flow with changing times. Some things are intrinsically immutable. In my view, marriage is a basis and foundation which cannot be simply changed by whim, by someone's definition of what is vogue or by someone else's view of how the world must change.

Canada is the only country as far as I know, and I stand to be corrected on this, that has accepted a modicum of change in marriage based on a claim of human rights. Let us understand how that took place.

I heard members talk about the fact that it is law in 9 or 10 provinces and territories, so why not take sort of a laissez-faire attitude, let lassitude to prevail, allow this to take its course and let Parliament rubber stamp what the courts have done. To Canadians who are deeply involved with this issue but who did not see it debated in the last election, let us be very clear about this point.

A lower court ruling was made in Ontario in 2002. I will not mention the name of the justice. The justice was appointed by the then prime minister, who immediately after that decision decided not to appeal it. He abrogated the legal responsibility we had to bring this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, threw the towel in on marriage and allowed the definition to virtually change overnight. Other courts did not come to that view instantaneously. In fact, the issue of civil unions had been strongly considered.

We know that, in Quebec, the civil union issue has been a major concern. Numerous human rights experts are in agreement, and it could easily become common practice.

However, what really took place in my view was political sleight of hand at the time by the prime minister and the justice minister. By throwing in the towel on marriage, they effectively allowed a domino effect to occur. Other provinces were not prepared to go down that route because other courts in various provinces, including British Columbia, had resisted this.

However, I am not here to point fingers, but rather to ensure that there is an establishment of the facts.

The Supreme Court of Canada did not hold the view that marriage, as it currently exists, was unconstitutional. The hon. member for Mississauga South has spoken very eloquently on this and has defended this issue, as have many of the colleagues on this side of the House.

What is important to know is that if we are to pass any bill in the House of Commons, or any motion, it has to be worth something, not just be second-guessed by the courts, which clearly was not the case here. More important, we are not second-guessed by ourselves.

I was here as a member of Parliament only three years ago when a promise was made, and it was adopted unanimously, that Bill C-78 would ensure and would see that the definition of marriage would be retained. What has changed? Fully half of the House of Commons are members who voted on that and who supported the definition of marriage. They cannot make a claim of rights because rights did not occur as a result of the fact the Supreme Court did not really look at this.

What are we really dealing with here? It is a bill that is designed to give a new definition of marriage and to provide a basis for support or protection for certain religious officials and to provide at least an assurance that those who hold those views would not be persecuted. If a motion unanimously carried in the House of Commons is worthless, then it is my view that the paper on which this is written cannot be too far away from that conclusion.

What activist group, in the next three, four or five years, would begin to countenance the idea of challenging that which we hold true, the final frontier, the last line of defence?

Rights are not boundless and they do have a responsibility, but above all, a responsibility to the truth as to what marriage really represents.

Marriage represents more than just a religious connotation and more than just simply a sociological factor. It is the ties that bind and create the basis of society. Whether we like it or not, it is one of the most important rituals that has brought societies together. It is not by accident that when explorers in previous centuries went from culture to culture and from place to place, they found they had a form of right and that right was always of opposite sexes. That is not to exclude anyone but rather to reaffirm something very unique about that relationship. Therefore, the political side of this is also very difficult.

I campaigned very clearly where I stood on this issue in the last election. It was asked many times. I am not so sure the public understood the gravity of the issue. Not everybody knew this was going to be the ultimate fallout, that we would have legislation that would be the mirror opposite, a 180° difference, from what we had stood for a few years ago. However, what I understand is that a lot of Canadians have not had an opportunity to debate this. While I commend the justice committee for having looked at it, the reality is a previous justice committee did the exact same thing but was not allowed to report.

Again, we would have to wonder why a committee that spent time criss-crossing the country, that had done so much work, that what its conclusions or findings were, were that difficult that we refused to allow those definitions and those many hours of labour by both the committee of all sides of the House and Canadians to be reported.

I do not want to use the word, and the hon. member has made an utterance of a word, but I find it unacceptable that we would somehow want to rush this through to assume that everything can just change because it is time to make those changes or because we simply believe that the time has come and that we were all tired.

I have heard it said from a number of members of Parliament who are ambivalent but who are probably will support the legislation because they really do not want to see this as part of an election. I have also had members say to me, “Wait long enough and the public will forget about it. So let's get it over with now”.

I am sure that does not apply to most members here, but I can say to those members of Parliament who make those declarations, they will get neither because this issue is so important to Canadians. It is not that it detracts or derogates from others' rights or others' privileges, it is so fundamentally important to our sense of who we are, our sense of being.

The definition of marriage, the ritual which enjoins people of opposite sex, predates society. It predates the very civilization under which we fundamentally exist. We can simply say that we believe we can have this right, notwithstanding the new civil lexicon that says that marriage must be between two people and if not, we are not with the times. Rather than marginalizing people for holding these views, we have to do a better job of recognizing what it is that the House of Commons is attempting to do.

More than any other piece of legislation that is before the House, this legislation has a priority. The House can do better than that. It can reflect and represent the truth, and it can ensure that the public record is clear. Let us not take the public for granted. Every member of Parliament, although I am not going to convince them with my comments, cannot guarantee the protection of religious officials or teachers. Being that as it is, we have a higher obligation to protect that which is right unless we have an agenda which wants to go one step further and attack the very institutions which are the foundation of this land.

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

Madam Speaker, the state projects, while subject to International Joint Commission treaties, are enjoined by the treaty between two nations. Specifically, the point at which the outlet would have an impact may only be at the time in which it is discharged.

This is not because we have competing jurisdictions between the federal authority in the United States and the state authority. In fact, it would appear that any state could undertake to remediate a particular problem within its own geographic boundaries. It is only when it dumps into a river that carries itself north, as the hydrogeology of the area would indicate, that it suddenly becomes a national matter.

It would appear that using this as only a state driven outlet allowed, in my view, this issue not to follow its normal channels. We have heard and have received strong signals from the White House and from the President that they are indeed interested in this issue and, in fact, that there ought to be a reference to the International Joint Commission.

More importantly, a proper assessment must be done in this process which by any measure of conclusion, or any measure of regard, could only but conclude that this will have an impact on the water supply as it flows into Canada thereby affecting the treaty and inviting a response by the International Joint Commission.

I think it is a very important case at a very critical time. It is not the first time certainly since I have been parliamentary secretary that we have dealt with the International Joint Commission.

This was done with regard to Lake Memphrémagog and the Coventry site where the water flowed in various directions.

However it is very important for us to recognize and to understand that a state may very well have the ability to build something within its own jurisdiction and its own boundaries, notwithstanding the wider, longer term natural implications geographically as this water flows north. We cannot wait for that to happen because by the time that happens the damage may have already been done.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to take part in this debate. I must point out a conflict of interest for me in this great debate. I stand by my colleagues from Manitoba, as I am a Manitoban by birth. I was born in Winnipeg in 1962. I know that I look a bit older. The many important issues we are called to address in the House of Commons make us age prematurely and make us seem a little older.

First, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment said, I am sharing his time. I thank him for that. I will be speaking about a very important topic. I want to commend the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul for her initiative.

Cooperation between Canada and the United States on water resources is essential. Major bodies of water straddle the border between the two countries and the water flows in both directions. The Great Lakes and other transboundary bodies of water represent more than 20% of the world's fresh water supply. Bilateral cooperation has contributed to a series of successes resulting from the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty and the International Joint Commission, also known as the IJC.

The IJC is an effective dispute settlement and water resource management mechanism that has proven itself a long time ago. Some 52 of the 54 referrals to the commission have resulted in consensus reports based on an independent review and sound scientific data.

The quality and quantity of water resources, as well as invasive species, remain major challenges for both countries and will require more intense bilateral cooperation in the future when it comes to flooding, drought and pollution, for example.

Without an effective dispute settlement mechanism that uses shared analyses and sound scientific data, both countries are at risk of seeing the situation deteriorate.

In March 2005, President Bush and the Prime Minister publicly promised to “enhance water quality by working bilaterally and through existing regional bodies such as the International Joint Commission ”. This promise was made in Waco, Texas, on March 23.

Fluctuating water levels have clearly led to hardship for our friends the North Dakotans, but the state outlet has the potential, as we all know and as has been so eloquently expressed here, to do serious harm to Canada. There is obviously a simple matter of dispute of the facts and the data needs to be provided as soon as possible.

What do we know? There was no environmental assessment on the state outlet project. Rather, North Dakota has relied mainly on environmental assessments prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers' proposed outlet, a different project from the state's outlet.

Further, North Dakota then chose to ignore findings of the corps' environmental assessments that highlighted potential risks to even then Secretary Powell's mitigation requirements. The state's outlet project creates risks as far as we can tell in three areas: biota transfer, water quality impact and socio-economic impacts, degradation of water quality and foreign biota transfer, which would have obvious socio-impacts on the Lake Winnipeg watershed.

Lake Winnipeg is the world's 10th largest freshwater lake and it is the sixth largest in North America. It is home to a very viable commercial and sport fishery worth over $100 million per year. About 80% of that commercial fishing is done by our first people. It supports a vibrant tourism industry worth another $110 million per year and of course Lake Winnipeg and Red River are a source of drinking water for nearly 40,000 people in Manitoba. Invasive species that enter Lake Winnipeg could spread to the larger Hudson Bay basin.

North Dakota has suggested that Canada's request for IJC reference is a delay tactic. It questions why our request comes at the last moment. We have heard this expressed by others. Canada first raised concerns about the state outlet as early as 1999 and regularly thereafter.

I know because I dealt with one of those questions in the House not too long ago. Canada formally proposed a joint reference on the state funded outlet 14 months ago in April of 2004. Using the one year timeframe, it is conceivable that it is quite likely that the reference would have now been completed by this date.

Moreover, we have received repeated assurances from U.S. government officials that any outlet project would conform with the Boundary Waters Treaty's obligations. There is some confusion over Canada's alleged refusal to pursue the reference in 2002.

I understand the member for Selkirk—Interlake had an exchange with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on the question of the difference between the state outlet and the federal project. It is clear that the proposed reference was premature as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had not finished its environmental assessment.

A further concern, and it may be an allegation by North Dakota but it is one that has to be challenged, is the reference that it has made that it would take eight and a half years. The IJC has told Canadian and U.S. governments that it could complete this case in a matter of a year.

Our embassy, along with Manitoba, is coordinating our efforts. Appeals are being launched on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Environment, Justice, and the President of the Treasury Board. Embassy officials are meeting with members of Congress and the heads of bordering states. This is the biggest letter-writing campaign ever.

Ambassador McKenna wrote an editorial published in the New York Times . It resulted in supporting articles in American newspapers and letters to the Secretary of State, Ms. Rice from Senators Lugar, DeWine and Voinovich, the Governor of Minnesota, Mr. Pawlentry, and the Governor of Ohio, Mr. Taft; from numerous American representatives of the Great Lakes Commission; and from mayors and major NGOs.

The White House's council on environmental quality held a series of discussions to see if a negotiated settlement could be reached.

Canadian officials met twice with the council on environmental quality to express our concerns about invasive species and impact on water quality. At present, the experts are analyzing the data on the conditions in Devils Lake.

We are encouraged by the evolution of this situation and by North Dakota's interest in finding a solution acceptable to both sides under the international boundary waters treaty.

Canada feels, however, that the Devils Lake outlet should not open until the necessary measures have been taken to ensure the project complies with this treaty.

We are working hard with the government of Manitoba to ensure that we are able to reach a conclusion that is acceptable to all. I would encourage members on all sides of the House to work together to affirm and to support our efforts to find a resolution on this important issue.

Once again, I thank the hon. members for cooperating and having the desire and the will to put this matter very much before this House of Commons, so that at the end of this, consistent with what the member for Winnipeg North has just said, we send an undeniable message of support that this project should not go through.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker has made a ruling. I do not mean in any way to be difficult to the member who is speaking now. but it would appear to me, according to the Standing Orders of the House, that in fact under Standing Order 52 there is not an opportunity for questions and comments. I believe that was the prior agreement, but I defer to your second review of this matter.

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and I just heard the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia. I am quite astounded that during a period of time in which this nation saw one of its greatest growth periods we would allow information on that census to simply be otherwise destroyed and committed to the ash heap for perpetuity.

The importance of families, of understanding our nation and of being able to provide information about where our family comes from is so vital to so many in this country. I know that it is not just a question of genealogists who have been asking for this, but it is clear to me that they have spent a considerable amount of their time trying to encourage members of Parliament to look at the significance. Once we allow this information to be destroyed, it will be destroyed forever.

I think we have to look at the greater purpose for the census in that period of time. To me, it seems important. It would be counterintuitive to our nation to take so much valuable information and simply render it useless or remove it simply because we are holding fast to an idea of confidentiality for which, realistically, there can be no application since no one from that period of time, with very limited exceptions, is alive today.

Considering that there may be people within the hon. member's riding who want this, as well as people right across the country and the numbers of people we have heard from, would he not agree that the interest of this generation in understanding a little more about our past supersedes the somewhat technical question about whether or not there is a question of confidentiality?

[Statistics Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with the question to which the hon. member for Peterborough had been pointing us. It is a very important subject.

My familiarity with this issue is one that is connected very strongly with my constituents. I know the hon. member has received perhaps hundreds, perhaps even thousands of petitions citing the interest of his constituents.

Has the hon. member taken the time to perhaps plumb the expertise of his constituents and those who have discussed this matter with him to ascertain whether there is anybody who would not support the legislation? Has he encountered large numbers of people protesting in his riding?

I understand the point he is making. I think the support for this bill is almost universal. People have taken a very strong interest in the issue, not just demographers but those in the past for very good reasons. I find it very difficult to accept that members of Parliament are taking a position which may be very much diametrically opposed to the intentions of their own constituents. Could the hon. member could enlighten the House as to what his constituents are saying of this bill?

[Textile and Clothing Industries, June 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that in this kind of situation where we have a Canadian who has been brutally murdered, where we have sent as many signals as we can internationally and diplomatically, the last thing we want to do is to remove the very person who will argue on her behalf right in Tehran. That is exactly what we are doing.

I know he shares the same passion for this case as I do, but I also know the hon. member is well aware of the fact that there are other Canadians who are there right now whose lives could also be affected. Also there are other people who witnessed that very brutal murder. They were there as attending physicians. We must try to provide some protection for which the Iranian government has already responded.

We must speak for Ms. Kazemi's death, if her death means anything, and that means keeping the ambassador there.