Jim Abbott

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification. This morning my understanding was that in spite of the fact that the amendment was taken under advisement by the Speaker, that the debate was ongoing on that amendment, in spite of the fact that it had not been accepted. I need to have clarification from you, Madam Speaker, if the debate that is about to take place following my point of order is on the amendment or on the original motion.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the 12 years that I have had the privilege of representing the people of Kootenay—Columbia as their member of Parliament, I have never had the volume of mail, email, faxes or people simply contacting me on any issue as I have had on the issue of the Prime Minister's decision to redefine marriage.

As in every constituency in Canada, of course, there are many valuable opinions on this issue, but I can report that I have never had one side of an issue so predominantly and overwhelmingly represented. They agree with the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who has unequivocally stated, “As Prime Minister, I will bring forward legislation that, while providing the same rights, benefits, and obligations to all couples, will maintain the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

My constituents see this as middle ground. This debate is not about equality or human rights. Those issues are settled. The debate is about the most closely held values of individual Canadians. It is about the essence of what makes them human: their beliefs, convictions, and things that motivate and shape their daily existence.

The Prime Minister claims that this legislation will protect professional practitioners of religion. These are the priests, rabbis, imams, ministers and others. What about the adherents to religious beliefs? Do persons of faith not have a right to hold the same convictions as their religious leaders? Not under this law.

The federal Liberals are saying that Canadians can believe what they want to believe, they can hold the values that they want to hold, but they are just going to be prohibited from acting on those values. This legislation is nothing less than a frontal attack on Canada's freedom of religion.

The false god of tolerance is well served by this legislation. Absolute values, black and white, right and wrong are wiped out. The federal Liberal government and the Prime Minister tell us that this proposed legislation will be the end of the problem. It is only the beginning of the end of the problem.

The clash between homosexual rights and religious rights is being fuelled. In typical dithering style, the Prime Minister has been completely unclear as to what he intends to do about the inevitable collision between gay rights and religious rights.

On April 10 of this year on the editorial page of the Calgary Herald I saw a headline that read: “A hard lesson in free speech: B.C. teacher taken to task for airing same-sex marriage views”.

The editorial said:

Quesnel B.C. teacher Chris Kempling shows by the asphyxiation of his freedom to speak how this fundamental right is undermined by what Justice Minister Irwin Cotler recently called the legal system's new “organizing principle of equality”.

In January Kempling wrote to his local paper criticizing federal same sex marriage plans. It was temperate in tone. He asked for a referendum. He did not mention his employer, the Quesnel school district, but identified himself as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. The board suspended him for three months anyway.

Superintendent Ed Napier said the board reviewed Kempling's letter and felt “he had violated a previous district directive. The issue essentially was...his expression of views in a negative and discriminatory context that the board felt was resulting in potential for a poisoned and unsafe environment for students and staff”.

I note the word “potential”. He was fined $25,000 for something that could have happened, but had not because no one had even complained. He had been told to shut up. When he would not, the board used what Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary called its “coercive power”. Interesting that this district board decides only people who favour the gay agenda may speak publicly. One wonders what it teaches its students about freedom of speech or even if it is on the curriculum. The editorial continued:

Kempling is no stranger to controversy, of course. The mild-mannered counsellor was handed a one-month suspension by the B.C. College of Teachers last year for “unprofessional conduct”--six letters he wrote to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer between 1997 and 2000.

Granted, an employee's spare-time activities may prejudice his job. In Abbotsford, for instance, two married teachers were fired in 1987 after nude photographs of the wife taken by her husband appeared in a men's magazine.

However, Kempling was just commenting on a matter of immediate public interest. Furthermore, he advanced a position overwhelmingly endorsed in the House of Commons just five years ago, and strongly held by millions of Canadians--that marriage was heterosexual.

Not that his rights would have been less violated had he advocated an unpopular perspective. However, by what twisted logic could the school district, and the college before, have persuaded themselves that pro-marriage writings were “unprofessional?”

It runs thus: First, the case of New Brunswick teacher Malcolm Ross established even off-duty teachers should represent their employer's values--

Kempling, of course, feels homosexual behaviour is immoral. His problem was the B.C. Court of Appeal, ruling on the issue of homosexualist textbooks in Surrey, said “highest morality” must include non-discrimination.

Thus, the equality argument. Never mind the religious teachings of the ages; the highest morality must include non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. That was certainly what the college thought, and the school district appears to have fallen into step.

Yet, in 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada disposed of the idea a person with one set of morals cannot treat someone with equality and dignity. In a relevant case involving Trinity Western University, it ruled that “freedom of religion is not accommodated if the consequence of its exercise is the denial of the right of full participation in society”. What about that does the Quesnel district not understand?

Kempling has filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Commission alleging religious discrimination.

Free speech advocates will wish him luck.

This is precisely why there must be a complete travelling public hearing of this bill. This is a public policy issue that goes far beyond any normal legislation. It is essential that Canadians be allowed to speak.

What are the federal Liberals doing? They are going to ensure that Canadians are not allowed to speak to legislation that has the potential to change human relationships. Quite the opposite. They are going to move this bill from second reading to a legislative committee. I would not blame Canadians if their eyes glazed over at this point. The question in their minds is, so what?

First, a legislative committee is restricted to technical legal consideration of the bill. There is no room for anything but legal. This would speed the bill back to the House of Commons for third and final reading.

It is in the government's interest to have this law move quickly. It believes that opponents would be able to mobilize more Canadians against the bill. The Prime Minister wants to subtly exclude Canadians from this process so he can see its speedy passage.

Second, opposition would be fuelled as Canadians start to consider the implications of the bill. This would occur as a committee hears witnesses across Canada. The publicity would cause Canadians to more deeply consider the implications of the bill. That is the last thing that the federal Liberals want. They want to bury it.

The member for London—Fanshawe has declared that the Prime Minister will encourage the committee to travel. This would require a change in the purpose of the legislative committee and an agreement among its members to travel.

He got the Prime Minister's assurance when the member was talking about leaving the Liberal caucus. The member received the Prime Minister's assurances under duress. I think the member got snookered by the Prime Minister because the justice minister claims no knowledge of the Prime Minister's commitment. Canada's justice minister is on the record distancing himself, and hence the government, from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's promises should never be taken to the bank. He changes his commitments faster than he changes his neckties.

As stated, the purpose of moving this bill to a legislative committee is to speed it up and bury debate. The Liberals have no interest in the opinions of Canadians nor do they want their legislative freight train to be derailed.

All in all, this is an intentionally deceptive process. The Liberals have tried to sell Canadians on the concept that this bill should not be in the justice and human rights committee because that committee is too busy. They intentionally forgot to mention the significant details that I have outlined.

Why did the Prime Minister force his cabinet ministers to forget their own personal commitments, personal beliefs and faith foundations?

Why is the government dunking this legislation through a legislative committee for a quick wash? I aggressively encourage all members of Parliament to do what is right and vote against the legislation.

[Petitions, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of Canadians to secure federal funding of $25 million a year for the next five years targeted specifically toward juvenile diabetes type I research. The petitioners point out that diabetes creates many devastating health consequences that produce huge human costs, that insulin is not a cure, that diabetes is an important health issue and increased investment into Canadian type I diabetes research has a potential of yielding immense benefits within a relatively short period of time.

[Liberal Party of Canada, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has added dithers to the great Canadian parliamentary lexicon.

In the face of irrefutable, overwhelming revelations of systemic Liberal Party corruption and with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, he has no choice now but to dither and duck. It is the new Liberal disco, foxtrot, rumba, tango, shuffle, dance: dither and duck.

The Liberal government has resorted to daily announcements in an attempt to hide from its own corruption. The Liberals avoid at all costs the prospect of facing the opposition in the House. What do they do? They dither and duck.

Unbelievably, the House leader for the Prime Minister cancelled an opposition day motion because he did not like the wording or intent of the motion because it would, of all things, hold the government accountable.

Yesterday, two days in a row, facing the largest political scandal in Canadian history, unbelievably, the Prime Minister was absent from the House. It is a new Liberal dance. It is the dither and duck, dither and duck, dither and duck.

All good Liberals grab a partner and do the Liberal shuffle, dither and duck.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in the 12 years I have had the privilege of representing the people of Kootenay--Columbia as their member of Parliament, I have never had the volume of mail, e-mail, faxes or people simply contacting me on any issue as I have had on the issue of the Prime Minister's decision to redefine marriage.

The constituents of Kootenay--Columbia hold many valuable positions on this issue. They are not unanimous. However, most agree with the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada who has stated:

As Prime Minister, I will bring forward legislation that, while providing the same rights, benefits, and obligations to all couples, will maintain the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Most of my constituents see the Conservative Party leader's stand as middle ground. They insist on equality for all Canadians while they understand that the word equality does not mean same. Advocates of the change of definition base their argument on equality. My wife and I or you and I, Mr. Speaker, are equal, but who in their right mind would not acknowledge that we are not the same. We have equal rights and responsibilities under Canadian law. We are subject to the same rules and regulations.

Even within Canadian law and provincial statutes, there is an explicit understanding that some laws are customized for the protection of women and children or exclusively related to men. This does not change the fact that we are equal. We are simply not the same.

We cannot ignore the obvious differences based on sex, age or special status, nor should we. Difference does not imply superiority. It simply recognizes the obvious. While we are equal, we are not the same.

Let me be as clear as I can possibly be. This debate is not about equality or human rights. This debate is about the expropriation of an eight letter English word, marriage.

It is true that all languages evolve with use. Take the word gay for example. “Don we now our gay apparel” are words still sung at Christmastime, but when first authored the words had no relationship to homosexuality.

Many of our words have evolved, but some words carry far more personal and societal historic meaning and tradition than others. Marriage is one such word. The union of a female, wife, and a male, husband, is a marriage.

Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal before the law, but that equality does not describe a marriage. While the unions are equal, they are not the same.

That the word marriage is even up for debate, is an absurdity in my mind.

Marriage is a loving commitment between two people. To end the description there is to rob the word of its deeper meaning, giving a totally false impression of what is at stake in this debate.

Marriage is child focussed, creating intergenerational, permanent relationships.

Marriage's deeper symbolism relating to a heterosexual relationship is captured in words like bride and groom or husband and wife.

Marriage bridges the sexual difference between male and female and naturally creates a domestic contract. Laws govern and regulate that domestic relationship, but marriage creates the contract.

If Canada embarks on this uncharted social experiment, in a generation we will arrive at a destination we cannot possibly predict today.

Speaking of rights, what about the right to use the word marriage? Why should a person have to explain they are married to a person of the opposite sex when they use a word that has been defined for centuries?

I do not understand why advocates of gay pride would want to use a word to describe the union of persons of the same sex that has always described a heterosexual relationship. Why would they not want to have their own word to describe their own special relationship?

This debate is not about equality or human rights. Those issues are settled. This debate is about individual Canadians' most closely held values.

The distinction of what makes us human is acting on beliefs and convictions, those things that motivate and shape our daily existence. The essence of Canada is our right to act on our most closely held personal beliefs. This includes the right to be religious or not to be religious.

I have noted the number of constituents who have contacted me on this issue and who have made it clear that their objection to the government's proposed redefinition of marriage is based on what they believe is best for our society's future. They have stated their position is not connected whatsoever with religion or their religious beliefs. However, the government's proposed legislation purporting to protect religious freedom is a sham, a canard, a figment of the Prime Minister's imagination.

Advocates of the proposed redefinition legislation claim it protects religious officials. I emphatically do not believe the Prime Minister when he says pastors, priests, rabbis, monks, imams or other religious officials will not be prosecuted or, more accurately, persecuted.

Religious organizations as charitable organizations have tax status. Does the Prime Minister really believe their tax status will not be in jeopardy if those religions do not hold to the new Liberal government group think?

Will it be okay for a religion to keep its scriptural text but be prohibited from reproducing, distributing or speaking about the text? Has the Liberal's foreign affairs minister not stated that churches should butt out of this debate? Did he not say that it was none of their business? Has a Roman Catholic diocese in Calgary not already been threatened that they could lose their tax status because they are speaking out on this issue?

What about adherents to those religious beliefs? Do persons of faith have a right to hold the same convictions as their religious leaders?

Federal Liberals are saying that Canadians can believe what they want to believe, they can hold the values that they want to hold. They are just going to be prohibited from acting on those values.

This legislation is a frontal attack on the freedom of religion of Canadians. What about persons of faith who are marriage commissioners who object to the use of the word “marriage” applying to same sex relationships? Provincial marriage commissioners have already been fired and the federal justice minister has admitted that there is nothing he can do to protect them. He is powerless.

The federal Liberal government and the Prime Minister tell us that this proposed legislation will be the end of the problem. In reality, it is only the end of the beginning of the problem.

The clash between homosexual rights and religious rights is being fuelled. Twelve months ago, the Prime Minister said that he would use the notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court determined that same sex marriage would be binding on religious organizations. Then last month he said, “I defend the charter. I will not use the notwithstanding clause”.

The Prime Minister's lack of clarity is alarming. Will the Prime Minister use the notwithstanding clause or will he not? It seems even he does not know.

What about charitable organizations that hold to specific values? Will they lose their status if they do not accept the new Liberal government group think?

The B.C. human rights tribunal is considering a case that involves a lesbian couple who booked a Knights of Columbus hall for their wedding reception in 2003. An agreement was struck, a deposit was made and invitations were mailed out to the couple's guests. However, when the Knights discovered the nature of the event, a clear violation of the moral tenets and beliefs of their faith, the Knights of Columbus cancelled their booking.

The Knights offered to return their deposit and give the couple an additional $500 for their expenses as long as the couple agreed to drop the issue. Instead, the women hauled the Knights of Columbus before the B.C. human rights commission stating that they had been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

Which brings us back to the key question. If this legislation passes, how long will it be before churches are forced to allow gay wedding receptions and what risk does it pose to their charitable status?

As reporter, Michael Valpy, has written:

Their case points to what many legal scholars and religious leaders say is a murky area between protection of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination.

They say it could lead to religious organizations and individuals by the phalanx heading to courts and rights tribunals once the same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.

The B.C. Knights of Columbus case focuses on whether a church-related organization is the same as a church and whether freedom of religion extends beyond refusing to perform same-sex marriage to refusing to celebrate one.

The freedoms that Canadians enjoy are based in the democratic tradition that teaches us that, as individuals, it is possible to always have our say, though we do not always get our way. Democratic tradition has been built over centuries on a foundation of religious tolerance. In fact, without religious freedom there would be no democracy.

Religious freedom is ultimately the freedom to express one's most deeply held beliefs with the full protection of the law. From pure religious freedom come all the democratic freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and the right to vote.

The bill is unnecessary. It is as unnecessary as it is dangerous. It threatens not only the sanctity of marriage but our democratic rights. It must be defeated.

[Taiwan Affairs Act, April 4th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-357, an act to provide for an improved framework for economic, trade, cultural and other initiatives between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I had secured the approval of the following members to second the bill: the member for Vancouver Island North; the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, who is noted; the member for Halifax; the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges; the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell; the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont; the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country; and the member for Newton—North Delta.

This bill may be cited as the Taiwan affairs act. It provides the statutory framework for economic, cultural and other initiatives between the people of Canada and the people of Taiwan in the circumstances that followed Canada's recognition of the People's Republic of China in 1970. The bill is about 35 years overdue.

I note the bill has seconders from members of Parliament from all parties in the House. Today as then we take note of the People's Republic of China as the sole and lawful government of China. However, from cabinet minutes in 1969, it is specific and clear that the Canadian government intended to maintain a de facto relationship with Taiwan.

The purposes of the bill are to continue the good relationship with the People's Republic of China while building a legal framework to guide and forge better mutually beneficial relations with the people of Taiwan.

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

[Government Response to Petitions, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to have more than one seconder to my bill that you may be introducing momentarily, a list of which has been submitted to you and the other parties in this House.

[The Prime Minister, February 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week the highly respected international magazine The Economist gave the Prime Minister the title Mr. Dithers. Now the whole world knows what British Columbia residents have always known.

The Prime Minister breezed through B.C. during the last election throwing around promises and assuring voters he would end western alienation, but what has he done? Dither.

He is dithering over the pine beetle infestations ripping through B.C. forests. He continues to dither as the U.S. still holds $4 billion in Canadian softwood lumber duties, half of which belong to B.C. companies. Vancouver has become even more vulnerable to organized crime as he continues to dither over possible decriminalization of marijuana. The Fraser River salmon fishery has been mismanaged to a point where we have lost one-quarter of the salmon in the river.

The Prime Minister's dithering has dragged on for years. West of the Rockies, British Columbians are telling the Prime Minister to stop dithering, keep his promises and start putting his government to work for British Columbia.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of empathy and sympathy with what the member for Halifax has said. However, in this instance, as she pointed out in her first intervention, we are two years into this process. While it is deeply regrettable that the government has chosen to treat the House as a rubber stamp, nonetheless at second reading she, as an experienced parliamentarian, will know that the vote for the bill is as a matter of principle.

If we were to see the bill, we would vote in favour of it. If we saw the bill move forward, in a minority Parliament we would have an opportunity to request, indeed demand hearings at committee. This would be part of the parliamentary process. Rather than simply stalling the bill or killing it at second reading, we have an opportunity, as parliamentarians, to put it into committee where the committee, because it is a minority government, would have an opportunity to deal with the kind of issues about which she has spoken.

It is an alternative approach to the one proposed by my friend from the New Democrats, but it is perhaps a wiser approach in that it keeps the process in the parliamentary system and it permits us to hold the government more accountable than simply killing the bill.

[Department of Foreign Affairs Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to agree with my friend from Halifax. One of the difficulties we have in this chamber is that very frequently the government does exactly what she has described, which is to treat this House as a rubber stamp.

This has been going on for a two year period and my comments were directed to the fact that in spite of being in a better position of being able to act and react within the world because of the split of the two departments, nonetheless we continue with this timidity on the part of the government.

To the second part of her question about having a review of Foreign Affairs Canada, it is exceptionally important that the people of Canada have an opportunity to have some input. However, with the way things are going over at the PMO, it strikes me that with the dithering of the Prime Minister and the fact that the PMO cannot really make a decision, I do not have much faith that we will have any real consultation or that we will see anything inventive. The point of my intervention was specifically that, that it is up to the people in this chamber to direct the people in the bunker.

While I sincerely recognize the hard work, the dedication and the knowledge, particularly of people in the diplomatic corps who are serving our nation well around the world, it seems to me that there is a timidity on the part of the bureaucracy here in Ottawa that in many instances stifles any inventiveness on the part of politicians who want to drive a more outward looking policy, and also stifles the ability of people, whether they are in Hanoi or Dar es Salaam or wherever they are, to actually enact anything that is at all creative.

We have so much goodwill as Canadians and as a nation and we should be trading on that goodwill and doing better things in the world than we are presently doing.