Dan McTeague

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Okanagan--Coquihalla for raising this issue for the second consecutive evening.

As I stated yesterday in this House, the government is determined to pursue justice for the Kazemi family without qualification.

The announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs on May 17, which runs contrary to his comments of appeasement, is the lastest of many extraordinary measures that have been taken over the past two years by our government and we will continue to press for results in this case.

We have clearly informed the Iranian government of our indignation and displeasure on the case and we will continue to press as well for concrete changes to be made to Iran's broader human rights performance.

Our government has asked, and will continue to ask, for the return of Ms. Kazemi's body to Canada for an independent three-person forensic investigation in Ms. Kazemi's death. Ultimately, a credible investigation is the only way the disturbing questions about this case can be answered.

We have also pursued the Kazemi case in our dialogue with other governments, the European Union and the United Nations bodies, to obtain their support to have this case seen as an example of the serious human rights violation that persists in Iran.

We appreciate the active assistance that they have offered us and will continue to liaise with our like-minded partners to discuss developments and, of course, strategies.

We have also remained in continual telephone contact with Ms. Kazemi's son, Stephan Hachemi, to share details of developments. Canadian government lawyers have also engaged in a constructive, cordial and common-cause effort with Mr. Hachemi's lawyers to look at every single legal avenue available. These discussions are being pursued on an intensified basis.

We have met on numerous occasions with the lawyer for the Kazemi family in Tehran, Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, to discuss available avenues under Iranian law. We are continuing our dialogue with this exemplary human rights defender.

When we were initially approached, as the hon. member suggested, with word of Dr. Aazam's account, in November 2004. we were of course concerned for his safety and his security, as was the member.

We have assisted in bringing him here to Canada as a refugee and have respected his need for confidentiality and safe haven, as well as those who may have also been witness to this. Information provided by Dr. Aazam will contribute to the ongoing efforts to achieve justice for Ms. Kazemi and her family. I know the hon. member understands this.

However, it is critical that we understand, and the records show this very clearly, that we have twice withdrawn our ambassador to Iran as a strong diplomatic signal of protest. We have made this point, to use the hon. member's words, vigorously and robustly. Keeping our ambassador in Canada would have done nothing to strengthen this message, and not at a time when Iran is one of the chief concerns of the international community.

Our ambassador was asked to return because we have serious concerns that must be given necessary attention.

Our ambassador is in Tehran to deal with the Iranian authorities so justice can be done in the Kazemi case, as I suggested yesterday. The ambassador is also there to apprise us of the possible action within the Iranian government system itself. Unfortunately, the Kazemi case is not unique. It is a symptom of the numerous human rights violations committed in Iran on a daily basis.

Whether in Iran or elsewhere, issues involving individual freedoms, respect for human rights and transparency of the society are of concern to all Canadians, and rightly so.

The Government of Canada believes it is more important now than ever to have an ambassador present in Tehran and to focus our efforts on the priorities to which Canadians attach a significant and great importance.

For all these reasons, we need our ambassador in Iran. We need someone there who has status to give him the power to intervene at the highest levels of government and we need someone who can ensure that Canada's point of view is heard loud and clear. That is why our ambassador is in Tehran.

[Income Tax Act, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has informed the House that he has met with the family. There is no doubt in my mind and lawyers representing the family note that this is a very important step that the hon. member has taken.

If the hon. member is true to making these arguments as effective as he is trying to make them now, the last thing he would want to do is to preclude any opportunity for making these arguments where they belong, which is directly and clearly in Iran.

There is also the other issue which must be taken into consideration and that is Iran's lack of respect for international norms as they relate to nuclear proliferation.

Having tried and gone down the road of withdrawing our ambassador, we are responsible for Canadians abroad. There are other Canadians there. We want to ensure that this is not a question of abandonment of their rights and their opportunities.

We understand the Kazemi tragedy. We understand the murder. We understand the Iranian regime, but we must also ensure that we present absolute pressure to that regime to ensure that no other Canadian is subjected to that. This makes a better claim to the cause of human rights in that country to ensure that individuals are never affected like that again.

[Income Tax Act, May 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to this important matter raised by the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

The Government of Canada remains, as he should know, determined to pursue justice for the Kazemi family. I want to assure the member that this matter goes well beyond being just a simple consular case. It is also very clear that the violations of Ms. Kazemi's most fundamental rights have also attracted the attention of the entire international community.

The government has taken extraordinary measures to press for results in this case. We have clearly indicated our indignation and displeasure to the Iranian government. We will also continue to press for concrete changes in Iran's broader human rights performance.

Most recently, following the unsatisfactory outcomes of court proceedings of May 16 in Tehran, the hon. member was at the foreign affairs committee when the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced a tightening of Canada's controlled engagement policy toward Iran. These new measures will persist until Iranian authorities are prepared to deal with the Kazemi case in a serious and credible manner.

However, we have been very clear that these measures do not include the recall of our ambassador to Iran for which the member is asking. Since the tragic events leading up to and following Ms. Kazemi's death, we have twice recalled our ambassador in protest. The hon. member knows this. We did this to clearly express our indignation over Iran's handling of this case.

The message was clearly understood by Iran and the measures that the minister announced two weeks ago reiterates and entrenches our resolve. Recalling our ambassador yet again for these same reasons would do nothing to strengthen this message.

The information presented recently by Dr. Shahram Aazam has underlined the concerns that many Iranians, including members of the Majlis, have long expressed about Ms. Kazemi's brutal treatment while in custody.

When we were initially approached with word of Dr. Aazam's account in November of 2004, we were of course concerned for his safety and security. He had specifically requested safe haven in Canada. Of course, the Privacy Act also required that confidentiality be maintained. We did not divulge his account and this was, in my view, the responsible decision. The final decision to go public was taken by Dr. Aazam only.

We are continuing to pursue real results in this case. It would have been easy at any time to take draconian action by limiting or even breaking off our diplomatic relations with Iran. However, such a response would only have been detrimental to the defence of Canada's interests. Not only is recalling an ambassador a symbolic act, it hinders the outcome of necessary action and, most important, closes doors that need to remain open.

Our ambassador was asked to return to Iran because we have serious concerns that must be given the necessary attention. Our ambassador is in Tehran to deal with the Iranian authorities so justice can be done in the Kazemi case and he is there to apprise us of possible action within the Iranian system itself.

I want to point out that in all of this we do work with international partners. Canada's committed line of action has been taken by the minister. We believe that taking the draconian and the very difficult steps that the hon. member is proposing, while perhaps well intentioned and perhaps based on something that he calls soft diplomacy, would make it irrelevant diplomacy. We believe it is important that we find a solution to this case.

We also understand that the son of Ms. Kazemi, Mr. Hachemi, has applauded the actions of the minister of May 17 and 18. We will continue to work to ensure that the case of Ms. Kazemi's death is not forgotten in the test of time.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his brief historical overview. I would also like to mention two points he missed in his little account. First, it was the Chanak crisis, in 1922. Second, with respect to the Supreme Court convention, I did mention that was in the 1930s, not in 1867, the year of Confederation. I think the hon. member misheard me. I just wanted to set the record straight.

After listening to the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, his remarks are causing me to ask myself the following questions. Is the Canadian practice with respect to treaties really as bad as the hon. member suggests? Does it necessitate the radical overhaul he is proposing? Does our current practice prevent us from playing our role and defending the interests of Canadians on the international scene? My answer to all these questions is unequivocally no.

The current Canadian practice, through its flexibility and adaptability to change, already allows the government to respond to change in fulfilling the international policy objectives it has set for itself, while recognizing the essential role of Parliament and the provinces in implementing treaty obligations in accordance with the distribution of jurisdictions under the Constitution.

The bill affects the constitutional system in a number of ways and raises serious questions. The harmonious balance that has existed for decades would be compromised if the proposal that Parliament be entitled to approve treaties before their ratification were implemented.

It would have a significant impact on our ability to conclude treaties and to guarantee our international commitments. It would have a negative impact on Canadian foreign policy, which serves the interests of Canadians first and foremost.

As many have already noted, Bill C-260 ignores the role currently played by Parliament, a fundamental role in treaty practices. Not only is Parliament actively involved in treaty implementation, but consultations are currently taking place in committee on a number of our major treaties, before the government acts.

The provisions of Bill C-260 suggest that the roles of each of the federal and provincial governments in treaty ratification need to be clarified and that negotiated agreements providing for federal-provincial consultation on treaty negotiation and ratification are required in order to improve Canadian practice.

In my opinion, the answer to that question is no. Such consultations have been held since 1937, and the Canadian government takes them seriously. Consultations take place usually during treaty negotiations and sometimes last for years. They must take place and they do. There is no point in reinventing the wheel.

The bill before us creates nothing new in this regard, but forces a straitjacket on the Canadian government in having it consult its provincial partners.

The requirement to negotiate individual agreements with each province under the pressure of an artificial timeframe, which this bill would create, is not only useless, but the cost of it would be prohibitive and could produce unexpected results. It could, potentially, oblige us to replace an efficient system with something less flexible, creating uncertainty that does not currently exist.

The bill before us raises another major concern in constitutional terms. Its provisions would limit the government's power to conclude treaties in areas of federal jurisdiction without consultation with the provinces. Canadian constitutional law has provided for over 60 years that the power to negotiate and conclude treaties lies exclusively with the federal government. This power is essential to Canada's speaking with a single voice internationally.

Among the proposals made by the hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia in Bill C-260, one of them mentions the royal prerogative in right of provincial governments with respect to the negotiation and conclusion of treaties in an area under the legislative authority of the provinces.

I have to say, in no uncertain terms, this provincial prerogative does not exist at this time.

As I already mentioned, the prerogative to negotiate and sign any international treaties belongs only to the federal executive branch.

In that sense, Bill C-260 would violate the provision in the Constitution on the allocation of jurisdictions. It bears repeating that the power of the provinces to negotiate and conclude treaties simply does not exist.

An amendment of this scale to the constitutional order would require more than a debate in this chamber. It would involve significant and lasting changes to the Constitution.

I must say that Canada's current system for concluding treaties, thanks to its inherent flexibility and respect for our constitutional order, responds best to the interests of Canadians.

The most fundamental point of what the hon. member is trying to express is that somehow there arrives from the potential of international treaties being signed, being concluded, being negotiated without consultation from all our partners from coast to coast, provincial and yes, although they are not respected formally in our Constitution, municipal players and other NGOs.

It becomes clear to me that what the hon. member is proposing very much mirrors what a former colleague of his party, Mr. Turp, proposed many years ago and that is to do indirectly by this bill what they cannot do directly, which is to manifestly provide treaty powers and to give in effect greater powers to one particular province that has an obvious interest in doing more than simply engaging in international policy.

The practical implications long term would be to recognize or to have a province then move one step further and say that the Canadian government, this Parliament, is in effect giving the right of that province to exercise a particular sovereignty which it currently does not have.

It is critical for us to understand that while we want to see more participation, the fact that there is a suggestion that there is no participation by the provinces, particularly as it relates to their areas of jurisdiction, is simply wrong and it is simply a false message to give.

We know in many domains there is a provincial interest. We see premiers attending international conferences with the presence of the federal government, usually with a flag and with someone from the mission. This is not new. Some provinces have gone as far as to open up trade offices.

To suggest somehow, as the bill does, that there is provincial frustration or worse that Parliament is not consulted on matters of treaty is simply off base.

More important, it is not just the power of the executive, and we talk of this executive in the context of democracy, it is important for us to essentially understand that the power of entering into treaties and making decisions on behalf of the country rests ultimately with an accountability. That accountability is here in the House of Commons.

That is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he gets up and speaks in the House of Commons, is accountable each and every day for what he does, whether it is entering into treaties or making decisions that affect the policies of the country externally. It also means that the minister understands the difference, unlike the opposition did just a few minutes ago when it suddenly said that in the case of Burma it was okay to recognize governments, not countries.

Imagine, if we start simply throwing international law up in the air and making rules on the fly, what kind of country we would be and how we would probably be considered the laughing stock of the world.

I understand what the member is trying to do. It is sugar coated. It is soft. It is talking about regional implications. However, let us not be beguiled by what the opposition, particularly the Bloc Québécois, is trying to do. It would certainly like to have those kinds of powers conferred because there is no example that it can give where the province has not been effectively consulted.

If a province is not effectively consulted, we know that it has participated in international fora and under many opportunities where it has been engaged on issues that are somewhat in the area of shared jurisdiction.

The honourable thing to do in this case, and members of Parliament must be certainly aware of this, is to stand up for a united Canada and to ensure that this power remains within the executive power and that it remains the power of the Canadian government, as recognized by the Constitution and as upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, as is our reputation internationally, which is unblemished.

[Treaties Act, May 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for having introduced this bill, despite the fact that I completely disagree with it. Although I am unable to give a factual summary of the bill in a few short seconds, it is clear that the member's efforts build on work done in the past by other members of the Bloc Québécois, in order, for one, to give the provinces powers that are clearly federal ones under the Constitution. Not only is this set out in the Constitution but it was confirmed too by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1930s.

I want to ask the member a question. It is very important to be clear about our position on this. He is implying that international treaties arising out of international situations completely ignore the needs of the provinces. Does the member not agree that, in terms of culture, an example he used, the provinces clearly have the ability to take part in the process and work with the federal government when their jurisdiction is affected? This has been the case with regard to Canadian heritage.

That is my only question, and I think the member has a great deal to say about this. Could he point out the flaws that prevent the provinces from intervening in their own areas of jurisdiction? I do not believe there are any.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by suggesting that I will be supporting in principle Bill C-274 in the name of the member of Parliament for Windsor West. I have worked tirelessly with the member over the years, as I have with the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and a number of other members on what has been obviously one of the most neglected areas of our health care policy.

We have heard some very interesting speeches by members of Parliament from all sides of the House on this issue. Most will not support, apparently, the initiative that is being taken here. We certainly need to update our thinking about drug patents in this country and of course, since 1993, what has been the ultimate benefit for Canadians.

We can talk about innovative drugs and how important it is to keep the price of our health care system down. We can look at a number of other initiatives and PR perspectives that have been given. It is important for us to understand that when it comes to the so-called balance that has been discussed, we need to give to the House a reality check that Canadians spent almost $22 billion in drugs last year, up substantially from the year before. Much of that balance, quite apart from the cost to consumers and the cost to various drug plans and other drug insurers, has also meant investments in research and development.

We know that when a drug is qualifying for its approval it must go through a very rigorous test. The test is a requirement that the companies must engage in as part of their research and development. What we have seen recently, and I think this has been made very clear by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and others, is that in fact the research and development is often advertising. In fact research and development is what they are required to do to conduct clinical trials, not the vaunted, wonderful R and D that would happen, that we thought would take place many years ago, but instead, what they have to do, the bare bones. Even at that we saw last year that the 11% requirement was not met. It is now down near 9%.

Let us put this into perspective. Several members have talked about the regulations as they relate to new drug submissions, as they relate to the requirement to fulfill certain obligations. We heard from other members concerning certain drugs that were abused. In fact, almost every drug that was nearing or ending its patent was subject to automatic injunctions which allowed the patent holder to basically make a claim of infringement without even having to prove it, because of a bizarre, arcane, draconian system. It basically forced the generic which was lawfully attempting to reproduce the drug at the end of expiry into a legal morass which went on for years.

In the case of Losec, it should have come off in 1999. Losec is an ulcer drug which costs Canadian consumers over $425 million a year. Those are real figures that cannot be simply dismissed. Of course the overall costs to our health care system came in the form of private corporations, provinces and other corporations which had to pay for this ultimately.

I suggested at the time that it was important for us, and we know we had a pitch battle in the industry committee of which I was vice-chair, where members suddenly walked in out of nowhere, knowing it all. Of course we never had the full study that we thought we should have had, but it did click with the industry department. I know that what they proposed here in terms of its recent regulatory package to deal with the retroactive claims or what they call evergreening took place sometime in November or December. To date we have no definitive answer as to where that is going.

My guess is that while it may take out the most egregious forms of automatic injunctions or this draconian system of being able to claim retroactively one's submission for a new drug, it seems to me that it will not do what has been done in the only other jurisdiction which had this system, the United States. There, the President of the United States proactively said, “I will not allow you to frivolously cause another stay or to go and get another patent extension or bring these matters before the courts and tie them up while making tons and tons of money”. Instead, the United States went with one stay .

The United States, of course, receives not only the benefit of having the infrastructure of the drug industry, it also has some of the greatest lobbyists to Congress. If Congress could accept that as a limitation, why is it so difficult for this House of Commons and our industry department to get it right?

I am exasperated as any member of Parliament here. I am glad that members of Parliament raise the issue of cross-border drugs, and that we have this terrible thing that is happening, but that, in many respects, beguiles and, of course in my view, denies the real game that has been played here with prescription drugs to the detriment of Canadians.

I know the position of the Liberal Party in 1993. I campaigned on that position. I defeated a member of Parliament who cheerfully brought this thing through. It hurt seniors and Canadians and today I am true to what I said in 1992 and 1993 when that bill was wrong. It needs a rewrite.

There is no doubt in my mind that section 511 prevents, for example, paclitaxel, which is a very important drug for women as it relates to cancer. It was a drug created by the United States department of health. Officials found it through a little coniferous tree known as a yew. They found the product and were able to extract the serum but could not patent it because they were a government agency. They gave it at the time to Bristol-Myers Squibb. BMS then took the product, patented it, and then released it several years later because it thought it was not effective. A little tiny company in St. Catharines, Ontario, which is saving millions of dollars and a lot of lives, decided to pick this product up only to find that BMS out of nowhere showed up and reclaimed the patent.

There is something terribly wrong with a company being able to not invest a penny in that kind of patent product, to get rid of it, to abandon it only to get it back when some other small innovative company, which happens to also be a very important company, loses the opportunity. In my view, our regulations do not provide any balance. They in fact destroy the balance and unevenly put the burden on consumers against those who want to innovate and those who want to create new products.

I am very pleased to see the Bloc Québécois finally recognizing this issue. I am very pleased to see that there is certainly a change in terms of the approach that people are taking, that people count, and that there has to be a restoration of balance.

However, I want to make it very clear that if we want to make this legislation successful, meaningful, and build on what we are doing in other initiatives, including the Chrétien relief package for Africa which I initiated through my caucus in 2001 working with Médecins Sans Frontières and Oxfam, the last thing we should be doing is giving ourselves, with respect to the drug patents regime, a bum rap.

It is very important that we understand that the fragility of the system, as it relates to the overall cost for drugs and being able to increase innovation while not completely dumping on our generic industry, is the position to which we have to continue to look forward.

As the rest of the world is busying its way to find new opportunities for its generic industries, Canada has had a policy which in my view has been very detrimental to generics. I can only conclude that if it is so important for us to have a drug patents regime, where a company can come in and create all sorts of innovation in another country and not even have the courtesy of packaging those new drugs in this country, we have been sold a bill of goods.

It is extremely important that members of Parliament get their minds around this and speak to the department and industry officials because it is also not true to suggest that there is some kind of a balance between innovation and generics. We should also consider the balance between health care and industrial outcomes. In my view, health care has not been properly treated. If anything, it has been seen only from a commercial end and I do not think Canadians would generally agree with that.

It is important for us to understand the intentions of the bill. If we cannot change forcefully these regulations, then there is no other option but to rewrite them. I believe that is the right approach and it is an approach whose time unfortunately has come. I would ask that all parties who are involved with this, who may be lobbied on this question, take into consideration the overall impacts on our economy and on the bottom line for Canadians, particularly Canadians between the ages of 18 and 64 who often have no drug plans.

I am not asking the drug industry to not be given something that it clearly deserves, but it is important for us to understand that when it comes to sustaining economic outcomes for Canadians, it is important that Canadians have an opportunity to understand that these regulations must also serve the general and common interests of this country. I believe that they do not. I believe they need to be reformulated and if they cannot be reformulated, this member's bill must be allowed to pass.

[Terrorism, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, to state the question is to answer it.

The hon. member knows full well that the government is concerned about terrorism. It is one of the reasons we have spent a considerable amount of money toward ensuring that we have safe and secure borders.

The hon. member also understands that there are, in essence, certain considerations that he is taking into account, including the concern we all have to ensure that the people of Tamil origin in this country are not treated as if they are all terrorists.

The hon. member has the same objective that we do, which is to ensure that we keep a safe country and to work hard to ensure that in Canada we keep security as the number one issue.

[Terrorism, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the LTTE has been listed in Canada pursuant, as the hon. member knows, to Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations since 2001.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this listing makes it an offence for persons in Canada or Canadians outside of Canada to provide funds to the Tamil Tigers, as well as fundraising on its behalf. The hon. member clearly knows this. We will continue on that assumption because it is the right thing to do.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. There have been a number of very important interventions by colleagues from all sides of the House. I wish to state right from the outset that I will not be supporting Bill C-38. I emphatically oppose a notion which in my view is not based on good legislation, let alone judicial interpretation, to change something which I believe is at the foundation of society as we understand it today.

The decision to bring about the legislation today, defined as a change in the common law definition of marriage, took place over the years and, I would suspect, is as a result of several various challenges which have taken place under the charter. Certainly this is setting aside some pretty important fundamental principles about who we are as a people and how we have come here as a people.

The institution of marriage in my view is not something on which one can make a claimed right. It is unique and is deserving of respect and dignity, dignity because it is not designed to be offensive. No more than I could ask to receive veterans benefits because I have not participated or donned a soldier's uniform for this country, could I make a claim of opposite sex to enter into that relationship.

It is very clear to us over the years that what we have seen in terms of decisions by various courts at a lower level may have been arrived at obviously by someone finding a right. In 1981 I sat here in the galleries working for Liberal cabinet ministers. I recall very well the debate which led to the ratification of the Constitution. It became very clear that the authors and architects of that Constitution, of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, never intended to have the kind of effect that we see today.

In some debates I have heard some suggest that the previous prime minister, the right hon. Jean Chrétien, referred to it as the living tree, our charter and Constitution. In fact it had nothing to do with the charter. That was a commentary that was made during the 1932 aeronautics decision by Lord Sankey. He was referring in one way or another to the Persons case. The Persons case had to be tried at the judicial privy council in England in order to get resolution.

I am very concerned that we have seen an evolution of belief in the country that somehow a claim for rights suddenly means the expunging, expelling or diminution of other rights. The rights of others who have and who hold true according to their faith and belief, which is not necessarily always religious, is something that is extremely important and one which cannot be diminished and in my view cannot be negated.

I have seen several decisions in which Canada, as was suggested by the member for Scarborough Southwest earlier this month, has become the first nation to recognize marriage and the claim to marriage of opposite sexes as being a right. This is without precedent around the world. It fundamentally erodes what has been for millennia a definition which most people in the world understand universally today. It was not by accident when cultures and various peoples came together and discovered each other, that of all the things that may have been different about them, the affirmation of marriage through a ritual of a right was common in almost every single interchange between societies.

There are those who hold true to the marriage issue as being simply religious. While that is true, and it is certainly true for me as a practising Roman Catholic, it is not necessarily and uniquely a matter that is strictly a religious practice. It has sociological and anthropological implications. I recall that the former editor of Xtra magazine was very clear as to what her views were on marriage. She believed that the community should not be pushing this. I believe her name is Eleanor Brown. She wrote in 2002 after the first decisions:

I would prefer that gay men and lesbians not get married because it's a heterosexual institution. We have our own culture and we need to keep it strong and healthy in this day of increasing assimilation.

There is something very important about the evolution that I have seen as a member of Parliament in the last 11 or 12 years. This is the same time, Madam Speaker, that you and I have been members of Parliament.

There has been the decision to bring in the controversial words “sexual orientation” which led to the change to the Canadian Human Rights Act, notwithstanding the fact that guarantees would be given that it would not take place. We then saw from Bill C-41 to Bill C-33 changes in terms of the modernization of benefits. We heard from the justice minister in 1999 that notwithstanding those changes, which were promised never to happen, there would at least be the protection of marriage.

It became very clear to me that despite the guarantees that are given on paper and by this House as to what the next level of protection is going to be, frankly, it is not worth the paper it is written on. A court down the road cannot be precluded by this Parliament from making decisions that will ultimately affect for all intents and purposes and for the reasons suggested by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and will not even guarantee, as it cannot guarantee, the practice of those who are prelates and who seek religious protection.

We know that is a charter matter. It is a matter that can certainly be discussed by Parliament, but it is a decision nevertheless that takes all considerations to be put aside. We need to ensure that there is above all a modicum of understanding and respect, and that issues of tolerance and pluralism are not based on issues of moral relativism.

We must ensure that this Parliament remain ever true to the rights and protections and notions of all Canadians. It means that wading into this debate of suggesting that we are going to somehow right a wrong may in itself be the wrong direction and wrong-headed.

I ask Parliament to look at issues based on common sense and the virtue and value of this very fragile institution. Though there is new wisdom from the Ontario court and from new courts as to what a human right may constitute, new wisdom that upends tens of thousands of years of practice and right, regardless of religion, I think we have an obligation to be sincere, direct, open and honest about what the institution of marriage and its capacity is.

It is a capacity that cannot be replicated in any other form. That is not discrimination. That is reality. No more that I could wish that the sun rose in the west and settled in the east, or that I would want the earth to be flat, I cannot accept for a moment that the institution of marriage is changeable to someone's demand for a right.

I believe very strongly in the issues that are of concern to our world, whether it is my work in terms of challenging my own government on hepatitis C when it was very unpopular to do so, or when I was one of the first members of Parliament to bring together the need for anti-retroviral drugs for AIDS to remedy the situation in Africa. On this issue, I believe as far as marriage is concerned that we must be prepared to say there cannot be a one size fits all. Despite those who believe that the charter is a living document that can change rights at will, I would respectfully submit from time to time that the tree needs to be pruned.

In this case, rights do have with them responsibilities and obligations to the truth and to ensure that above all we present legislation that is important, that addresses the true needs in this country, for instance, the needs of the aboriginal people. There are issues such as poverty and housing. There is the problem of racism. Those are issues where we need to work together as a model for Canada.

The institution of marriage is one that deserves dignity and respect. For all those who have been married in the past, we must accept the consequences of now seeing the potential through this Parliament of changing our ideas.

What is it in the past five years, what new wisdom is there today to suggest that what this Parliament decided by a five to one margin should now be suddenly different?

It seems to me that while there may be a willingness to be generous and to accommodate and to have an opportunity to bring in everyone, we may be doing so at the risk of offending not just people, but that we are also affecting the truth. The institution of marriage guarantees society. It is the main vehicle by which we will continue in the future, by which this Parliament is relevant.

I am one who champions the issues of rights. I fundamentally believe this is not an issue of rights. Regardless of why a superior court judge or an appeal court judge in Ontario, appointed by the previous prime minister, would suddenly decide otherwise is beyond me. However, I would also suggest that it is Parliament's opportunity to say no to what I believe is bad legislation and to send a message that we do have indeed, as the justice minister suggested, a constitutional democracy. It is time to put democracy, common sense and truth back into that equation.

[Veterans, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of excluding Quebec, but rather of accommodating Quebec, as we have seen in the case of UNESCO.

It should be noted that Quebec did not ask to be recognized as an associate member of UNESCO.

The reference to the idea of territory as a possibility of becoming an associate member of UNESCO is inaccurate. This idea refers to colonies administered by a member state or country. Quebec is not a colony, nor do we think it should be.

However, there are rules of conduct that have to be followed, including about sole representation of delegations from sovereign countries and who can speak at these international forums.