John McKay

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

First, Mr. Speaker, I think decisions should be made on principles rather than polls. I share with the hon. member the overwhelming number of people who have written to us in a particular way. Today I had 400 e-mails in my office alone, so I understand the dynamic and I understand what is involved here.

We hear the argument that we do not do rights by way of popularity contests. What members need to think about carefully is that the rights component of this debate is significant, but it is not overwhelming. There are all kinds of other components to this debate, which I would submit far exceed the potentially discriminatory effect of the same sex marriage debate.

The issue for me is that we have to balance the rights issue with the multitude of other issues that come in. That is why I think Professor Cere's analogy to the complexity of a web is probably as good an analogy as I have seen.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think in all candour I will refer to a presentation at the justice committee by Professor Allen, from the University of British Columbia, I think it was. He read Hansard after the debates on no fault divorce. His comment was that pretty well no one in the House, either ministers or MPs, actually predicted the consequences of this small change to the Divorce Act.

So in all candour, I do not know how this small change to the definition of marriage will affect our society. I do not really think it will affect me and my generation. I think it will, however, play out over the generations and I do not see that as a good thing.

Heterosexual marriage as it presently exists is easily the best way in which men relate to women, it is easily the best way in which women relate to men and it is easily the best way in which children relate to their parents. That is a socially incontrovertible fact. All other forms of relationships are inferior to that and it is statistically verifiable that a common law relationship is far less stable than a heterosexual marriage relationship.

I say to the hon. member, who raises a valid point, that I cannot say with any precision how this will roll out. I do have some legitimate concerns. As I expressed, the issue of caution here is operative. There are other alternatives.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly had a tumultuous summer on this subject. I do not know whether my constituents are more irritated by the decision itself or the fact of the irrelevancy of Parliament to this debate.

Parliament has spoken at least three times on this subject in the last few years: once in a free vote in 1999 in an overwhelming vote of 216 to 55 in favour of the traditional definition; in 2000 on Bill C-23 and again on a harmonization bill and both of those were whipped votes.

The courts have felt perfectly free to ignore everything that Parliament has said to date. I dare say that pretty well everything that is said today will be ignored as well.

Parliament is irrelevant to this debate because it allows itself to be irrelevant. Power abhors a vacuum. Parliament gave the charter to the people of Canada yet the judges have not at all been shy about using that power to the maximum.

This is not a dialogue between Parliament and the judiciary. This has become a monologue in which Parliament is afraid to speak with any authority.

I sit on the justice committee. We spent six months travelling the country going to 13 separate communities. Well over 200 briefs were directly submitted to us. There were over 450 written submissions. Regardless of the views, I thought it was an excellent exercise in democracy. Everyone got their say and just possibly there may have been some meaningful exchanges among the participants. When the people are given an opportunity to speak they usually have some wisdom to share.

Not only were the members of the justice committee ignored, so also were the hundreds and thousands of people who made an effort to participate in the process. In one fell swoop the Court of Appeal of Ontario trashed the efforts of the committee and devalued all those who chose to participate, making any report that we would like to make utterly and completely irrelevant.

Those who think the decision of the Court of Appeal is a good decision should think carefully about any future participation of Canadians in the democratic process. Why would anyone really bother? Why would they let themselves be humiliated? Indeed, why bother to vote?

There will be those who argue that this is in fact a free vote. For an observer from Mars, that might appear to be a free vote, but let not the rest of us be so naive. The government has chosen not to appeal this decision and ask for a stay in that decision and is therefore creating facts on the ground.

In early June the government's official position was to support the traditional definition of marriage. By the end of the month the government had turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction and proposed a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to which any first year law student already knows the answer, and drafted a bill which allows for no other alternatives whatsoever. In addition, the Prime Minister has signalled to members of the cabinet and therefore his parliamentary secretaries that they will not be free to vote as they see fit. The Minister of Justice has been travelling the country to argue with the provinces to just treat the bill as if it had already passed.

The contempt for Parliament and by extension its MPs as representatives of the people is breathtaking. We will collectively bear witness to MPs and cabinet ministers swallowing themselves whole in this so-called free vote.

For those who generally accept the deconstruction of the institution of marriage in the name of equality, I say good for you. Vote as you see fit. I profoundly disagree with you.

Having now commented on the process by which we get here, I would like to talk about the issue itself. Professor Daniel Cere of McGill University has analogized heterosexual marriage to a web with a variety of strands which underpin the very existence of our society and our nation. Among the variety of strands are sociological, anthropological, legal, theological and generational.

The courts in their deconstruction have said that all these strands are non-essential to the core meaning of marriage. Marriage according to the Court of Appeals is merely a love institution, two persons with a pulse having sex.

The conventional relationship between opposite gender people reaching generationally backwards and forwards is an incident of a marriage, not its core element. The Court of Appeal has literally bombed the intergenerational bridge both front and back.

Heterosexuals reach back to previous generations and forward to future generations. The Court of Appeal has said in effect “So what? It's not a core feature of marriage”. Inherent capacity of heterosexual couples to procreate is nice but it is not a necessity.

The court has said that the way in which heterosexuals reach out to a larger society and say in effect “we will perpetuate you” is a novelty, but it is not a core element. And forget all that religious nonsense. It is just a collection of myths anyway. We are a secular society and we have no space in our one size fits all pluralism to buy into anyone's ancient myths. It is really a conceit to equate equality with sameness.

Pluralism should respect diversity. People come in all shapes, sizes and orientations. They are not the same, but this crude deference to equality has convinced us that the same is equal and equal is the same. This is intellectual nonsense. A just society treats its citizens with equality before the law. It does not jam each and every citizen and each and every relationship into identical boxes.

The courts have bought this crude idea because Parliament is AWOL on this issue. We have deferred to the legal equality claims in deference to all else. We have bought the notion that if it is not exactly the same, then it is not equal. In the marriage debate that works itself out to say that homosexual relationships must be equal to heterosexual relationships, therefore, marriage must be reshaped and redefined to accommodate the equality claims so that they are the same thing. This is nonsense in life, but apparently not nonsense in law.

Mr. Justice Charles Gonthier is quoted as saying, “To permit the courts to wade into this debate risks seeing Section 15 (equality) protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation being employed aggressively to trump Section 2(a), protection of the freedom of religion and conscience”.

Apparently nothing short of marriage is good enough. We get into this foolishness about separate but equal. All of those in the 1960s school busing debates start playing tapes in their heads. Heterosexual couples are different from homosexual couples for one very obvious reason: gender. They are equal for the purposes of law, but they are not the same. Same is not equal and equal is not the same. The issue is to achieve legal equality, not sameness. A principled view of pluralism would respect not only the need for the freedom of the individual but also the cooperation that is required to create conditions of common good.

Our charter is an important statement of rights and freedoms, but it is silent on the conditions necessary to create common good. When we let the lawyers run away with the debate and give undue deference to judicial pronouncements, we erode the conditions for the common good. It is rights without responsibilities.

By dumbing down marriage to two persons with a pulse having sex, we have destroyed the conventional and replaced it with the contractual. The law of contract serves us very well in the exchange of goods and services but is supremely inadequate to express the complexity of opposite gender relationships. Marriage is or has become a contract, nothing more, nothing less. All those strands to which Professor Cere referred, which feed that web, are charming but not necessary, are mere mythologies.

At the justice committee, we were repeatedly cautioned not to mess with marriage. The example frequently quoted was the change to the Divorce Act, which created no fault divorce. It was argued that this was a tiny change affecting an insignificant number of people and would alleviate genuine hardships. Who today can say that their family has not been affected by no fault divorce? It has affected every marriage in the nation and continues to be a national tragedy. We have achieved the distinction of being one of the most divorcing nations in the world.

Today we are invited to make a minor change to the definition of marriage, which will affect a small number of people and alleviate an injustice. Do not be naive: this will affect how everyone regards marriage and will have consequences for the heterosexual community far beyond those apparently minor inconsequential changes.

Caution is the operative word. There are alternatives available and I would, if I may, urge everyone to support the motion.

[Foreign Affairs, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this month Sri Lanka experienced a devastating flood which killed and injured hundreds of people and made many homeless. This is just one more disaster for the people of Sri Lanka.

As we know, the people of Sri Lanka have experienced civil war for the last 20 years, which has been disastrous for the tiny island nation. Currently there is a tenuous ceasefire and a fragile peace process.

For those who care about Sri Lanka and its people, it is very important that supportive nations step forward. It is important that Canada be not only at the peace table but also at the donors conference next month and also be seen to be helping in ways beyond the $100,000 pledged for disaster relief. It is important not only for the people of Sri Lanka; it is also important for those Canadians of Sri Lankan origin.

[Barb Tarbox, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, last week Barb Tarbox died, as she knew she would, from lung cancer caused by smoking.

Many Canadians, especially teens, will know her as a tireless advocate against smoking. Her brutal realism and shock truth was intentional. She was saying to those kids, “Look at what smoking can do to you. Look at my head. Look at what smoking has done to my body. Look at me”. How ironic for a woman who was drop-dead gorgeous and a famous international model to be destroyed by the ravages of lung cancer.

Everyone wants to make their lives count for something but so few of us do. Barb Tarbox died telling kids, “Don't start smoking,” or, on a Nike theme, “Just don't do it”. She made her life count for something and she inspired us all.

Maybe, just maybe, some kid will not start or will quit. God bless Barb Tarbox. She was an inspiration to us all.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful speech. I want to say to him that the view over here may not be as monolithic as he may think.

One of the issues that has been raised by others has to do with the practical implications of this. I will put my question for the hon. member in a provocative sort of way. If Taiwan is not admitted as an observer, really what is the harm? The Taiwanese are participating in other venues directly and indirectly in various health organizations. As I say provocatively, why are we getting all worked up here? Surely they are getting everything they need and they have a practical solution to this anyway.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I think consistency is the big thing. The hon. member mentioned going to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which has basically been Taiwan's window into international health issues.

We had an interesting example in Toronto where we had exactly the same outbreak. The facts were there and they were very clear and cogent. Professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came up from Atlanta to Toronto and said that Toronto was handling it as well as could be expected and that there was very little on which they would criticize.

The WHO, on the other hand, put us on a travel advisory. Therefore there was inconsistency between the two organizations. By giving Taiwan access to the WHO, at least there would be consistency. We might not be happy with it but we would at least have consistency in terms of a world health approach. I think that is what has to be achieved.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, WHO's interpretation of what constitutes a state seems to be somewhat flexible. The argument is that it can only recognize a country that is a member state of the UN. Obviously Taiwan is not a member state of the UN. It rather foolishly quit.

Several generations of leadership later and it is saying it was a bad idea. We have a bizarre situation where the WHO for certain purposes will recognize Palestine, which is really the PLO; Malta; Niue; Cook Islands; and other entities as health entities for the purposes of the WHO, but for admission to the WHO the island of 23 million is simply a black hole in the WHO scheme of world events.

That seems to be more than passingly bizarre since 23 million people constitute a population that is in excess of 75%, more than most states that actually are members of the WHO and the UN. At this point I do not think we can afford to play the game any longer. There is enough blame to go around between the Taiwanese and the PRC in terms of their politics. We could spend the rest of the day talking about that but the truth is that they are starting to cost me and my constituents their health and money. I say, enough.

We now have an opportunity to encourage Taiwan's admission and I think it is time we did it. We have terrific examples in the WTO and APEC and I cannot imagine why we cannot extend that example on to the WHO.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank again the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. This is a timely motion and I want to congratulate him for his initiative.

I am speaking in two capacities: one in my capacity as the member for Scarborough East and also in my capacity as chair of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group.

As recent public health issues have disclosed, health knows no political boundaries. It is therefore quite foolish to leave certain jurisdictions out in the cold while arguing about status. Taiwan occupies a bit of ethereal status in the world. We all know it exists but we just cannot mention it out loud.

For most purposes, this works. Taiwan is part of the WTO but it has kind of a special trading entity status. It is part of APEC and is recognized as an economic entity. Therefore for the purposes of money and trade we seem to be able to find where Taiwan exists but for the purposes of health it has no status.

The only link therefore appears to be economic. Therefore I would like to suggest that really it is in Canada's best interest economically to recognize Taiwan for its desire to enter into this status of observer at the World Health Organization, and indeed it is in the world's economic interest.

In Toronto we have recently had a graphic lesson of the economics of health. The SARS scare has literally shaved off millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, off the GDP of the greater Toronto area and probably will in turn shave percentage points off the GDP of our nation.

The equation is rather simple. If we do not have health, we will not have any money. People do not shop, they do not travel when they are afraid of getting sick. Therefore, no shopping, no money, no GDP, no economy.

I do not know what the impact of SARS will be on Taiwan, but it will be an order of magnitude several times greater than that of Canada. The impact has been far deeper and far harder in relative and absolute terms than the impact on Canada. Even today's newspapers detail new deaths and fresh cases both in Taiwan and in Toronto. That is all the more reason Taiwan should be included in the WHO instead of being treated as an international non-person.

We appear to be only too happy to trade with Taiwan, for example, take its money, but when it comes to recognition even if it is to our benefit, then we have a curious case of blindness.

How did we get to this contradictory state? I suggest it all goes back to Prime Minister Trudeau's recognition of the People's Republic of China as the rightful representative of the Chinese people. During the negotiations, the prime minister was pressed to recognize China's claim to Taiwan. The prime minister, very cleverly I would suggest, would only go so far as to take note of the Chinese claim. I make the distinction that there is a great of daylight between taking note of somebody's position and actually accepting someone's position.

The take note policy formulation was acceptable to the PRC at the time and many other countries, including the United States of America. This in turn paved the way for President Nixon's historical visit to China.

Taiwan in a monumental blunder withdrew itself from the United Nations in protest, which in turn paved the way for the PRC to flex its diplomatic muscles as and when it needed on other countries and force countries to start to backtrack on this take note position. That has resulted in some evolutions and distortions of the one China policy, which really has come to mean we do not do anything with respect to Taiwan without checking with the PRC first. We then calibrate the cost and decide on how much we want to irritate the PRC.

One of the flash points is the WHO. Our position is hypocritical. At least we are joined in our hypocrisy by quite a number of other nations. There does seem to be hope however as the United States has recently come out firmly in favour of Taiwan's admission and the EU seems to be leaning that way.

However if we play this right, we can successfully irritate everybody instead of doing the right thing and recognize Taiwan for what it is, a fully functioning state with legitimate aspirations to join multinational organizations which are designed to help the world function in a better way.

Why should we care if in fact this little island has a big problem with its enormous neighbour? The problem is that all of our inconsistencies will come home to roost one day.

The politics of the PRC-Taiwan are getting to be too serious for the health of the rest of the world. Reluctantly, the PRC has acknowledged to the rest of the world that it has been a little less than forthcoming about its SARS problem. Clearly it understated the problem by several orders of magnitude. Given the PRC's tendencies, in the words of the Wall Street Journal , to cover-up and deceive, we will probably never really know the magnitude of the problem until the crisis passes.

I remind members that this is a world health problem, not merely a Chinese problem or a Taiwanese problem. What happens there directly affects us and our constituents. I put it to members, visit any hospital in Toronto and see the results.

The source of much of the SARS outbreak in that part of the world and its understatement of the magnitude of the problem is, as one doctor put it, a little like having unprotected sex while knowing that one is HIV positive. The deceitful decision of the PRC to suppress information has a direct impact on the health of all of us and is literally costing us billions of dollars.

However it gets worse. Taiwan immediately and accurately reported its SARS outbreak to the WHO, which did not get reported initially because of pressure from the PRC, and then only later as a province of China. The WHO refused to send its health experts to Taiwan or to allow Taiwanese health experts to participate in developing their knowledge about the outbreak, therefore imperilling the health of the Taiwanese, the Chinese, the world at large and Canada in particular. This has to stop.

It is one thing for the PRC to imperil the health of its own citizens. However it is quite another thing to imperil the health of citizens of other nations. The world is too small for this kind of petty politics. It is particularly galling to have a cooperative state like Taiwan shut out by the political muscle of China, a less than cooperative state. This is not the first time.

In 1999 Taiwan had a devastating earthquake, killing 2,400, injuring 10,000 people and leaving over 100,000 people homeless. Taiwan needed the WHO. Time is crucial in a matter like that, and the WHO spent useless hours and days working out ways to deliver unofficial and indirect assistance to Taiwan.

Parliament must speak on this issue. We say that we value democracy and the rule of law. Taiwan is an economic tiger but it is also a democratic miracle. It has emerged from the gloom of a brutal repressive dictatorship into the sunlight of a vigorous multi-party democracy. Yet when Taiwan requests a legitimate form of recognition, we turn our back on her. We do not walk the walk; we only want to talk the talk.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution as it would get Canada a little closer to walking the talk.

[Supply, May 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech and for making the effort to bring this issue to the floor of the House.

Is the member satisfied that the current arrangements between Canada, Taiwan and the PRC adequately protect Canadians' health, in that now Taiwan, in particular with the SARS outbreak, is being reported in a fashion that requires it to go through China? We have seen that China has been somewhat, shall we say, less than forthcoming in its analysis of the disease, in its reporting of the disease and in its recognition of the disease, and that this has had implications for the world community at large.

Is he satisfied that Taiwan, which is essentially a co-operative country, is being reported by PRC, which is essentially not a very co-operative country?