Joy Smith

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Island North.

I am pleased to put some comments on the record. I want to read the motion into the record once again. The member for Newton—North Delta presented the motion on April 5. It reads:

That, in light of the fact that the Air India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air India bombing of June 23, 1985.

There is a reason why this motion came forward. As some of the members opposite and members on this side of the House have said, this should not be a partisan issue. It is a question of closure. It is not about what this government did or what that government did. It is about families. It is about the fact that the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy have not had closure.

It has been 20 long years and there has not been an adequate examination of the circumstances. The trial faced one setback after another. Even the RCMP's key suspect died in 1992 under suspicious circumstances. There have been problems with defence counsel. The trial was forced to be postponed twice. So, over the period of 20 years, there have been many challenges.

A few minutes ago the member for York West said that the Conservatives should have started a judicial inquiry right at the beginning. The fact of the matter is that the proper thing to do at the beginning was to go through a proper trial. The expectations are always that a trial will bring the witnesses, the suspects, and the people who have to testify in to the court setting and conclusions will be arrived after all evidence is examined.

Clearly, after 20 long years and after the longest, most expensive trial in Canadian history, we find now that there were many inadequacies with how that trial was conducted, with what happened with key witnesses, and with some investigative questions that have been less than thoroughly answered. And now we are hearing 20 years later how distraught the families are because that closure has not occurred.

The member for Mississauga—Brampton South outlined the costs and all the things that have been done. I acknowledge that there have been many costs that have been incurred. I acknowledge the fact that there certainly was a strong attempt to find out what happened in this tragic event. However, after all is said and done, in actual fact, the answers are not forthcoming.

Why this is so important is because we hold dear what the member for Vancouver Island North just stated. We hold dear the safety of our citizens. We hold dear the fact that we need to ensure that our country and our citizens are protected.

We know that in this day and age, since 9/11 and since we look at the global terrorism attacks in different countries, terrorism is an issue that must be addressed and must be stopped. The message out to the world must be that things happening on Canadian soil will be examined and that perpetrators will be brought to justice.

Twenty years after this tragic event, the families of the victims have said that they only way for government to rectify what they see as a second tragedy is to convene an inquiry. It has been a tragedy that the answers have not been forthcoming, that there has not been a resolution of who was responsible, why it happened and what connections and networks have to be addressed.

The Leader of the Opposition called for a public inquiry on March 16, shortly after the decision was released. This is very important because the Leader of the Opposition did not dilly-dally. He did not stop. He went straightforward, made a decision and called for the judicial inquiry.

Since then, what have we heard in the House of Commons? We have heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that an inquiry is of no value, that nothing will be learned from the inquiry, but that the Deputy Prime Minister will meet with the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy.

They are not interested in meeting. What they are interested in hearing is that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are listening to their request for closure. The way they get closure is to find out what really happened. Therefore, this is a tragedy that has still not come to the answers that all Canadians need.

This is a bigger global issue. This trial is a precedent for anything that might happen in the future on Canadian soil. The world is watching to see, when something like this happens on our soil, if the government ruling the country can be decisive, clear and meet the needs of the people, protect the country and Canadians on our soil.

Quite clearly I fully support a judicial inquiry and call upon the government to ensure that this happens immediately, and to have a compassionate heart for the families of the victims who have lived through this for so long and are still living the nightmare of not finding out what really happened.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's eloquent speech, which was very clear and very well done. In his speech the member said that he did want the families to have closure. The member pointed out the many things that were done for the families, but at this point in time there are few or no answers about who is responsible or what was done. There are questions about the inquiry itself.

Does the member believe that a public inquiry should be held? If he does, would he tell me why, and if he does not, would he tell me why not?

[Air-India, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer. The question is, why has the Prime Minister failed to convene a public inquiry to help relieve the pain and suffering of the families of the victims of the Air-India tragedy?

[Air-India, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, all the Prime Minister offered to distraught family members of the Air-India tragedy were words of condolence. Not a word was uttered about the necessity of establishing a public inquiry to unearth the truth. Even the Deputy Prime Minister could not see any benefit to holding a public inquiry.

When is the Prime Minister going to return to his election commitment of transparency and accountability in this government and promptly agree to convene a public inquiry?

[Ukrainian Canadian Restitution Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian recognition and restitution act. This bill has been brought forth due to the determination and the stick-to-it-iveness of the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette.

Sometimes in our history mistakes are made. Dare I say we cannot rewrite history, as the leader of the official opposition just pointed out, but what we can do is recognize a wrongdoing and give it the kind of recognition it deserves.

From 1997 to 2001 the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette consulted on this bill. As the previous speakers have said, the purpose of this enactment is to provide for redress for the injustice done to persons of Ukrainian descent and other Europeans during the first world war, to commemorate this sad event in Canadian history, and to provide for restitution. Restitution is to be devoted to educational materials dealing with Canada's past internment policies and activities and to promote tolerance and the role of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On April 1, 2001 this bill was introduced by the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette. In the course of time the bill died on the order paper, but the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette had so much conviction about what should be done that it was reintroduced on November 18, 2002. Once again this very important bill died on the order paper. What had happened to Ukrainian Canadians was something that really touched the heart of the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette, so once again on October 12, 2004 the bill was reintroduced.

We have to note it is seldom that a member of Parliament takes so much time and makes so much of a commitment to reintroduce a bill. However, the member has done so because he has so much conviction that the Ukrainian Canadian people need to have redress on this particular issue.

As members have said before me, with the outbreak of World War I, the War Measures Act in 1914 was implemented through an order in council by the Canadian government. This resulted in the internment of 8,579 people. They were termed enemy aliens. They included over 5,000 Ukrainians who had immigrated to Canada from territories under the control of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The internees were used as forced labourers to develop Canadian infrastructure. They were used to develop Banff National Park, the logging industry in northern Ontario and Quebec, the steel mills in Ontario and Nova Scotia and the mines in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The infrastructure development program benefited Canadian corporations. There was no doubt about it. The terrible thing about this was that the internment was carried on for two years after the end of World War I. This was a sad day in our Canadian history.

The member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette was determined to make sure that the Ukrainian Canadian family of people who immigrated to our country was recognized not only for their contributions but also that the internment was something that should never have happened.

These wonderful people, who have been a foundation of our country and who have done many things to help Canada, should not have had to endure this internment. As other members have said, we cannot redo history. It happened and and it is time to address it and recognize the people of Ukrainian extraction, the people who helped build this country.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have done much to bring this issue to the forefront. In fact, to some degree the Mulroney government made promises of support. Even as early as 1993 the leader of the opposition, Jean Chrétien, said that he would do something to address this issue. It has been 11 years since that promise was made and Ukrainian Canadians are still waiting for acknowledgment of these injustices.

I am proud to stand in the House of Commons today to bring recognition and honour to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette because this is what our Canadian Parliament is all about. He has been a champion for Ukrainian Canadians. He has also been a member of Parliament who has really touched the hearts of all Canadians because all Canadians now at this time, years after this happened, feel that this is a sad day in Canadian history.

The Government of Canada during that time unjustly confiscated money and property from Ukrainians and other Europeans, money that was never returned.

In Bill C-331, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette asks that the contemporary value be applied to various educational and commemorative projects for the benefit of all Canadians. No restitution will be made to individuals but rather the money will be put to laying the foundation of history so something like this can never happen again on Canadian soil.

Memorial plaques have been and are being installed in the 24 concentration camps in which persons of Ukrainian or eastern European descent were interned during World War I. Some still do not have such plaques but these plaques describe the events of the time and the regrets of present day Canadians, written in Ukrainian, English and French. In our country all can read this, all can remember and all can learn from this sad day in history.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette also wanted to ensure that all memorial plaques at the concentration camp sites would be properly maintained. A lot of thought, a lot of stick-to-it-iveness and a lot of dedication has gone into the advent of this very important bill here in the House of Commons.

The bill also asks for the establishment of a permanent museum in Banff National Park at the site of the camp established there, again with signage in Ukrainian, English and French. This will provide information on the operation of all the concentration camps established in Canada at the time of World War I and the role that Ukrainian Canadians have played in the building of Canada since that time.

We have gone through a memorable year where the people of Ukraine have become the heroes of the world with their vote on December 26, 2004. We know the member for Etobicoke Centre was a real champion in that election. I think we need to acknowledge the heroes of our country. I have to give honour to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and thank him for his perseverance.

I know members on all sides of the House will put Bill C-331 through to honour and commemorate this event.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is the government's responsibility to have quorum in the House of Commons. There are not enough members in the House right now to conduct business properly. Can this be addressed and could the members be called in, please?

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul I will be voting against the Liberal Bill C-38.

The bill was introduced by the Liberal government for the sole purpose of redefining marriage. My constituents in Kildonan—St. Paul have told me, by way of over 14,000 faxes, e-mails and feedback sheets I sent out, that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a woman, excluding all others. These responses have come from people from all walks of life, all religions and all cultures.

Out of all these factions there have been only 20 constituents who differed in that opinion in this matter. Never in the history of Kildonan—St. Paul have the people responded so clearly, so vigorously and in such a concerned way.

As their elected representative, I have heard their concerns and I stand in the House of Commons today to voice my concerns on their behalf. I ask the government, why, after defending the definition of marriage just a few short months ago, did it flip-flop and bring forth a bill that the majority of Canadians did not want? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to hold a referendum on the issue? Why did he refuse to go to the Canadian public and hear their concerns?

In 1999 the Prime Minister promised to use all necessary means to defend the traditional definition of marriage. That was only five years ago. The Prime Minister is in his latter sixties. He has believed in this concept for approximately seven decades. This is a curious time in life for anyone to change his or her mind on such a critical social issue as redefining the definition of marriage. What is the motivation for this? I believe Canadians need an answer to the question.

The Liberal government was elected because the Canadian public remembered what the Prime Minister said in 1999. They believed him. At the same the current Deputy Prime Minister also stated that the government had no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. How can the Canadian public trust the government?

Before the last election there was not a word of this to the public. Clearly the government was elected under false pretences. Again, I ask the question, what the government's motive is for this? Why is it being pushed through without going to the Canadian public first? Does it take the public eye away from the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery commission? I would say, indeed it does.

A well known political trick is to bring forth legislation that diverts the public's eyes from the ongoing daily stories coming from any other controversial issue about which the government is not keen on having the public hear. It is a diversion tactic with a far-reaching impact on the Canadian public. The findings from these hearings have been virtually pushed back in the public media and Bill C-38 has taken over the story of the day. The government has succeeded in what it is trying to do. It is a shame because the ongoing sponsorship scandal has proven to be even worse than we first thought. The story will come out.

Canadians are beginning to see that there is a difference between the current Liberal government and its opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in a democratic society and the right of every individual to have choices. The Conservative Party believes that each individual has the right to choose what lifestyle that individual wants with all the equivalent rights and benefits that go along with it. The Conservative Party of Canada believes each individual has the right to choose a religion or not choose a religion. The Conservative Party of Canada believes each individual has the right to freedom of speech and respects the rights of all people.

The leader of the Conservative Party of Canada has taken a responsible, compromise position which is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians. The option to retain the traditional definition of marriage along with the legal recognition of same sex partnerships with equivalent rights and benefits represents the middle ground position that allows for democracy to grow and flourish in our great nation. This issue is an important matter of social society on which Parliament should have the final say because parliamentarians are mandated to reflect the wishes of their constituents.

Since the changing of the definition of marriage is a matter of personal conscience, all Conservative Party members will have a free vote on this question. The courts have never ruled on legislation of the type we propose, which would ensure equal rights and privileges for same sex partners while affording the traditional definition of marriage. This is not only a moderate position, but a reflection of the democratic society Canadians have enjoyed over the decades. It is a moderate position, one that is supported by citizens across our nation.

There is nothing moderate or reasoned or democratic about the Liberal position. The definition of marriage is a question of social policy as opposed to a rights issue and, as such, is a matter for Parliament to decide. We do not believe that supporting the traditional definition of marriage is an infringement on anyone's rights. If we legislate the traditional definition of marriage along with equal rights and benefits for same sex partnerships it is a reasonable compromise. The Prime Minister does not get to decide if same sex marriage is a fundamental right. The Canadian people decide.

The Supreme Court has refused to answer whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. In doing so, the court has decided that this is a matter for Parliament, which represents the Canadian people, to decide.

No wonder the current Prime Minister is confused. He has so many irons in the fire and so many fires to put out that he neglects the issues of health care, crime and taxation and seems to be driven to distraction. Clearly his need to travel the world and seek out photo ops has garnered him the opportunity not to face questions in question period.

In past Canadian history the law usually reflected the social consensus within our society. Since the last election, the agenda has changed. The law is being used now as an instrument for social engineering by the Liberal government. The government has presented a bill that has no protections for religious freedoms in relation to income tax and charitable status, even though the Prime Minister has promised to protect religious freedom.

The Prime Minister is using the law now as an instrument for social engineering. He knows very well that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled already that the provision in the draft legislation pertaining to the rights of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages is outside the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament.

Until now there has been no federal statute defining marriage, democratically passed by Parliament, for the courts to deal with. Therefore, all the decisions that have taken place have been in a legislative vacuum. By filling the legislative vacuum, we would be providing Parliament's guidance to the courts about this matter of social policy.

The Prime Minister will not hold a referendum. Calls for a referendum stem from the feeling Canadians have been left out of this debate. The Supreme Court has left the matter for Parliament to decide. The majority of the Liberal members of Parliament are voting against the traditional definition of marriage and are supporting Bill C-38.

On our side of the House, we are allowed a free vote so we can vote according to the wishes of our constituents and according to our consciences. Unlike members opposite, our leader firmly believes in the democratic process and in the right of the individual to choose. Democracy is all about that. This is Canada.

I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Government Appointments, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons environment committee recently voted seven to four against appointing Glen Murray to chair the national round table on the environment. The committee found him to be lacking in credentials and expertise for the job. After hearing the recommendations of the committee, the Prime Minister appointed Murray anyway.

The Prime Minister only one year ago promised to condemn the practice and politics of cronyism. Apart from the fact that Glen Murray is a Liberal, why did the Prime Minister break his word and appoint Murray against the recommendations--

[Petitions, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions from the people of Kildonan—St. Paul. They pray that Parliament will define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul in Winnipeg, Manitoba. My constituents want to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.