Libby Davies

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to have this opportunity to speak to this motion that has been presented to the House by the member for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles. I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this motion. It is a very good motion. There was some discussion about the motion and the amendment that was put forward this morning that was agreed to by all parties in the House. It actually improves the motion. The NDP is pleased to be supporting this motion today.

I have been sitting in the House this morning listening to the debate. I know that one of the Conservative members who spoke a little earlier professed some skepticism as to whether or not this motion would ever go anywhere. I wanted to actually be a bit optimistic and say that this motion and the work that has been done in regard to it is as a result of the good work that can happen when people work together in a constructive way in a minority Parliament.

It appears that this motion will be passed by Parliament a week or so from now, and that will be good, but certainly, it will then be the responsibility of all of us, and I am sure the Bloc Québécois will take the lead in ensuring that the government is then held responsible, to ensure that the motion is not lost and that indeed the legislation that is contemplated in the motion before us today does in fact come back to the House.

I understand the skepticism that is there, but we have to do our job and ensure that we do not let the government off the hook. There has been a willingness and a positiveness expressed today by the government that this legislation will indeed come back. We will certainly follow that up. We will do our bit and I am sure every other party, including the member who brought forward the motion, will be working very hard to ensure that this happens.

In fact, as has been pointed out, this motion partly results from work that has been done by attorneys general across the country in provinces and territories. It is partly their work, but it is also the work of the member for Charlesbourg--Haute-Saint-Charles working with other justice critics from other opposition parties that has brought us to this point.

I want to recognize the earlier work that was done in developing Bill C-242 by the member from the Bloc. In October of last year, three members, the justice critics from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, actually held a press conference and together supported this bill and this initiative coming forward. I want to recognize the work that our justice critic, the member for Windsor--Tecumseh, has also done. He has worked on the justice committee and with other members of the House to bring forward this idea. Clearly, it is a good indication of people working together. It gives me a sense of hope of what can be done when people work together constructively.

The motion before us today is actually very intriguing. The essence of the motion is to reverse the burden of proof by seeking an amendment to the Criminal Code so that a prosecutor and the court system can put the onus of the burden of proof on individuals who have been convicted of a serious offence to demonstrate that their assets were not obtained using the proceeds of their criminal activities.

This is a very important principle and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice pointed out, it may be a complex issue to develop and bring forward. I believe that in doing so, it must be done in the context and with respect to the charter. I would certainly agree with the government on that point. In fact, another Conservative member said earlier in the debate today that this has nothing to do with the charter or respecting the charter. I would disagree with that point.

Any legislation that comes forward, particularly this legislation that is contemplated in the motion, must be done through the lens of the charter. We must ensure that we also respect people's individual rights and liberties.

The principle that is contained in the motion is actually an important one. It reminded me of a similar process that exists at the municipal level. I am a former member of Vancouver City Council and within the city of Vancouver charter, there is a provision that allows the city of Vancouver to do what is called a show-cause hearing. It is exactly the same principle that is put forward in this motion. It reverses the burden of proof. In a show-cause hearing the city of Vancouver has a very significant power to require business operators or people who hold business licences to show-cause as to why their licences should not be removed.

In fact, this provision has been used on a number of occasions against businesses and stores in the downtown east side that, for example, were selling substances to alcoholics and making huge profits, things like rubbing alcohol or glue for the purpose of sniffing, and was being done deliberately.

It was also being used against businesses that were believed to be over-serving people and operating beer parlours in a manner that was completely contrary to any basic practices of good management. This power the city of Vancouver had to demand a show-cause hearing on those operators was, in effect, the same principle that we are debating today, of reversing the burden of proof. It was a fair process.

There may be concerns expressed about what we would be engaging in, but I know from the work we did at city hall, these show-cause hearings still go on today from time to time. It is a very fair, democratic and open process, and has been a very effective tool for the city of Vancouver. Maybe it is used by other municipalities, I do not know, as a way of ensuring there are good practices and management.

In doing some research on this motion before us today, in actual fact, the province of Manitoba, in 2003, introduced legislation called the criminal property forfeiture act. It would allow police to apply to the court for orders to seize property either bought with profits from unlawful acts or used to commit crimes. Clearly, the provincial government in Manitoba has already gone to some lengths to establish the same kind of procedure.

I know the member for Winnipeg Centre, who will be speaking for the NDP later today, will give further details as evidence that this kind of proposal can actually work and is indeed in operation in other jurisdictions. We want to recognize the work that is being done in the province of Manitoba by the NDP government in bringing forward a very similar initiative because of the concerns it had about the proceeds from crime and how organized crime was vastly profiting from illegal activities.

I want to speak about some related matters that have come up in the debate today. The motion before us today is very important. Hopefully, when the legislation comes back, it will provide an additional tool for law enforcement agencies and the courts to deal with organized crime, and the proceeds and profits that are gained unlawfully.

It is very important that we not only look at the consequences of those illegal efforts but also at the causes. A number of members who have spoken today have used as examples issues around organized crime and grow ops, particularly in British Columbia but not exclusively.

The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, stated earlier that 85% of grow ops in B.C. are related in some way to organized crime. I do not know whether he is right but that was the figure he used. Whether or not 85% is absolutely correct, certainly the numbers are very high. There is obviously a correlation between this motion and what takes place in organized crime.

It behooves us to examine some of the causes and the problems we are facing. The Bloc member and I were part of the Special Committee on the Non-medical Use of Drugs which was reconvened to deal with the drug bill which is now back before the justice committee. Testimony in the earlier version of the decriminalization of marijuana bill clearly showed us the very strong links between our drug laws and prohibition and organized crime.

Mr. Eugene Oscapella, who is from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy and teaches at the University of Ottawa, provided some fascinating insight into the real world of the illicit drug trade. He produced information for the committee. For example, to buy a kilo of heroin at a farm in Afghanistan would cost about $90 U.S. After that same product goes through its circuitous route through organized crime and finally hits the street, its value has increased by 32,000%. That same kilo would sell for possibly $290,000.

We need to recognize and come to terms with the reality that our laws are actually fuelling organized crime in terms of prohibitionist policies. This is an incredibly lucrative business. Whether it is grow ops, trafficking on an international scale, or financing terrorist organizations, there is absolutely no question that the illicit drug trade is a huge market and a lucrative proposition for organized crime. It is the primary source of its vast amount of profits, its influence and its power. We have to recognize that fact.

We can look at the law as it is and ask ourselves what kind of changes we need to bring in. A motion such as the one before us today resulting at some point in legislation would be an important tool in looking at the proceeds of criminal activity and organized crime. It is also important that we examine the impact of the law itself and how it fuels organized crime.

I often think of the whole regime of prohibition as being akin to a regime that equals a chaotic situation. It is an environment with no rules. It is an environment where violence is the method by which disputes are resolved. The member from the Bloc spoke earlier this morning about the deaths that have been caused by organized crime; I think he mentioned 160 deaths in Quebec alone. On TV we have seen those horrendous situations and the communities that have been impacted and the innocent people who have been killed as a result of the activities of organized crime.

My own community of east Vancouver has seen many deaths, whether they are from overdoses or whether they are from the whole regime of prohibition. It has had an incredible impact on individual lives as well as on the health and well-being of the community as a whole.

I have done a lot of work on this in my local community. There is a strong sense that we need to have a realistic examination of our laws and the impact of drug enforcement. We have to question whether or not at the end of the day it can be realistic.

It is such a lucrative business. We could put more cops on the street. We could do a lot of things, but the fact is, as many members have spoken about this today, this business is still growing.

As the member for Langley mentioned earlier, I do not think it is a matter that somehow we have all gone soft on crime. That is too easy an analysis. It is too simple a solution to say that. It may respond to the fears that people have about what is happening in their local community, but it is a very simplistic analysis to say that somehow all of us, except presumably the Conservative Party members, have gone soft on crime.

These are very complex issues. There is a growing recognition that law enforcement alone cannot deal with this problem. If we truly want to deal with organized crime, if we want to deal with the violence that flows from organized crime, if we want to deal with the drug trade, then we have to look at the illicit nature of that trade and recognize why organized crime is involved in that business.

The NDP is very pleased to support this motion. We did have some concerns originally that the motion was a little too broad. The way it was written it was like a blanket. With the amendment that has been put forward it is much more satisfactory.

It is very important when the bill comes back that it has a close examination. I heard the member from the Bloc question the government as to whether or not there might be some speedy process. It is something that all parties will have to discuss, but it does require an examination obviously. I would certainly encourage the Liberal government, in the spirit of this minority Parliament and the work that has been undertaken by individual members of this House who have put in a lot of effort to bring this motion to the House today, particularly the member from the Bloc, to ensure that this does not slip off the political agenda.

There is an expectation, assuming that this motion is approved, that it will come back, that there will be legislation and we will examine it. Hopefully, we will be able to pass something. It is a rare day that all sides of the House agree on something. We may have some slightly different perspectives on how we approach this, but I think there is a sense of unity here.

There is a deep concern about the impact of some of these incredibly violent crimes on people and communities. There is obviously a demonstrated willingness to take up this motion and to translate it into some workable legislation. Certainly within the NDP we will wholeheartedly support that effort and work both in the House and at committee to ensure that happens.

I hope also that we recognize some of the broader aspects of the issue that we are dealing with here in terms of organized crime. We need to have other debates, not on this day but on other days.

I would like to thank the member for bringing this motion forward. I congratulate him on his work. It is a good motion and we are pleased to support it.

[Housing, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what does the Prime Minister say to the 1.7 million Canadian households that desperately need affordable housing? What does he say to homeless people around the streets? What does he say to aboriginal people off reserve?

In his rush for Conservative support, he betrayed them and there is anger and outrage that he broke his own promise for $1.5 billion for housing while rewarding his corporate buddies.

I challenge him to get out on the street at night, experience the impact of what he has done and then think about his corporate tax cuts. Is he willing to take that responsibility and see what he has done?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very comfortable with the decision our leader has made, that this is not “a free vote” for the NDP. We have a party policy. The highest order of our party is a party convention. It was at a convention that our members democratically voted on a resolution overwhelmingly supporting same sex marriage. Therefore, when we run for the NDP, we do so on the basis of supporting our party policy and party platform. That is number one.

Second, we do not see this as a matter of conscience. We see it as a matter of being a member in this place, being willing and accepting our responsibility to uphold the rights of people. That is why I say we can be opposed to same sex marriage but still vote for the bill. I do not see that as a contradiction at all.

I feel proud of the fact that our leader has had the courage to stand up and say, because this is an issue of rights, we will not vote against those rights. He said to every one of us that we would be vote for the bill. That message also came from the membership of our party, so he has done the right thing.

The Conservative Party did it differently. I happen to disagree with that. I think it is a cop-out. I particularly feel that way with the Liberals. The Prime Minister said to Canadian to vote for him on the basis of equality, then he said to his own members that they would have a free vote. I do not like that and I do not think it is a good situation.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that clearly most heterosexual couples have children. But so what? What point is the member trying to make? The issue and controversy were created because the member for Calgary Southeast suggested that somehow was the reason for marriage and that other kinds of marriages were, therefore, invalid. If married couples want to have kids, that is wonderful. There are also couples who are not married who choose to have children.

The problem I have, and I put it back to the member, is why he is so intent on creating this little box and either one fits in it or one does not. It seems to me that marriage is also about diversity. It is about different kinds of relationships, whether it is between a man and a woman who have children or do not, or adopt children or whether it is between two women who have children or do not. Why can he not accept that?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speculate on cases that may or may not come forward. In fact, there are cases already that have to do with church property, which may be a separate question.

I am not a lawyer, but I would not vote for the bill unless I believed it protected religious freedom. I believe it protects religious freedom, and I think that is a very strong feeling in the House. If anything came later which somehow violated that, I think another debate would take place here.

That is my feeling about it. I support this bill on the basis that it protects the rights of individual Canadians and it also protects the rights of individual Canadians when it comes to religious freedom.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-38. I have to say there were times when I thought this would never happen. There seemed to be so many delays for political reasons or to accommodate a political agenda.

I am very glad that finally this bill is before Parliament and is being debated. I hope very much that the bill will be approved and that it will not be so drawn out that somehow it gets lost again, because I think it is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with for a very long time.

The first thing I wish to say is that I am very proud of our leadoff speaker on this debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas, who rose in the House last Wednesday and spoke with such great courage. He shared with us very personal information about his own life as a gay man and about his partner of 24 years, Brian. As I listened to that debate, I felt very proud to be a member of this caucus and this party where our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has been so clear on what the position of the NDP is.

I wish to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for speaking out in such a strong and forceful way and for I think really giving a human face, a real face, to what this debate is about. I am also very proud of our leader, who has done the same thing.

For me this debate is not about tolerance. I listened to the comments of the Minister of National Defence a little earlier. He said he would be very proud when this bill passes and I would certainly agree with him. I think he made a very fine speech. I too will be very proud when this bill passes, as I hope it does.

But I think it needs to be said that Bill C-38, if it were left to the Liberals and the Conservatives, would not pass. It really begs the question as to the reality. We have a Prime Minister who on the one hand has spoken about the values of human rights, dignity and respect to the Canadian people, but on the other hand has allowed his own members to have a free vote. I think that is unfortunate.

I listened to the minister of defence and the questions and comments that came later and I must say that to me this bill is not about some notion of tolerance. I actually do not even like that word; that we somehow tolerate other people who we see as different from ourselves. There is a sense of judgment in that, in saying that we will tolerate someone on the basis of their beliefs.

To me, this bill and this debate are about rights. This is about dignity. This is about individual liberties and individual choice.

I would also like to recognize the work that was done by the former member of Parliament for Burnaby—Douglas, Mr. Robinson. I think it was two or three years ago when I stood in this House to support his private member's bill on same sex marriage. Certainly in Canada Mr. Robinson has been at the forefront of the campaign, the movement and the struggle for gays and lesbians to seek equality. In the early years, when he first came out, the work that he took on was very difficult and very painful for him. Certainly there was a backlash. The courage he displayed has allowed many of us to come forward and has paved the way for gay and lesbian rights in this country. The work that was done needs to be remembered, recognized and valued.

I was also very proud to be part of the press conference on Valentine's Day, February 14, with the member for Burnaby—Douglas and the Bloc member for Hochelaga. The three of us engaged in a press conference because we wanted to speak out as gay and lesbian members of the House. We wanted to talk about our own lives. We wanted to put that before the House.

Although there were some tough questions and we were dealing with a situation that was sometimes confrontational and controversial, I was very proud. I think what we were trying to say was that we wanted this debate and this issue to be about dignity and respect. That was the message that we brought to the press conference and that we bring to this debate.

I was here last Wednesday, February 16, when the debate began. I listened to the Prime Minister. I actually really appreciated the history that he gave about the charter and equality and where it has come and how it has evolved. I think it was very important to put that on the record.

I also listened to the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party. I think he spoke for more than an hour. The thing that struck me most about his speech, even though some people may believe it was a very eloquent and a very heartfelt speech, is that it was very unreal. It was very out of touch with the lives of real people in Canada.

In fact, today I was on the radio debating with a Conservative member, the member for Cambridge. As we were debating this bill he told me and the listeners that he felt the speech of his leader was something like a doctoral thesis. I guess he was very impressed with the speech. He thought it was very academic and from his perspective he thought that it covered all kinds of legal points. He likened it to a doctoral thesis.

He then went on to say in the radio debate and interview this morning that he felt the bill before us was talking away his rights, a Conservative member's rights, in terms of marriage and the institution of marriage. I have to say that I had some real trouble understanding the meaning of this argument and where it was going.

I certainly did not see the speech from the Conservative Party leader as a doctoral thesis. Maybe it would serve well as some doctoral thesis, but to me the debate fundamentally comes down to dealing with the reality of people's lives and how we as a society treat people, especially minorities.

We have had all of these very significant court cases, and the legal route and the litigation that happened were incredibly important because they paved the way for this debate to happen, but at the end of the day, after all the legal arguments are said and done, I think what we are dealing with is a matter of people's individual choices and lives and what we choose to do in terms of getting married or not.

So when the member for Cambridge today said that this debate for him was about taking away his rights, I have to say I really do not understand that. I do not understand how strengthening and enlarging the definition of civil marriage is taking away anybody's rights.

As I said before in the House, this bill on same sex marriage is not about forcing the member for Cambridge or the member for Calgary Southeast to marry a man if they do not want to. There is nothing in the bill that creates harm. There is nothing in the bill that undermines the institution of marriage.

On the contrary, as the member for Burnaby--Douglas pointed out so beautifully in his speech, this debate and this bill are about actually strengthening the institution of civil marriage. This is about strengthening people's commitment to one another.

To come back to the Conservative leader's speech, what I was struck by, as I said, was the lack of humanity. If the debate is only about theoretical legal issues, and if that is the only part the Conservative leader can attach himself to, if that is the only way he can debate it and reconcile whatever is going on in his mind, then I think he has really missed the point. He has missed it on the basis of what is happening out there for a lot of people. I wanted to make that point.

In fact, what the Conservative Party offers up to us is this notion of a civil union. I have heard this so many times from different Conservative members and I have to say that we have to reject this notion.

If years ago there had been a debate about ending marriage as we know it as an institution and if the debate for everyone was about us all going to a civil union, then I think that debate would have had some merit, but at the eleventh hour to bring in an argument and to rest one's case on the idea that a civil union is going to do it is a really false notion, and I think people see it that way, as simply a rationale and a smokescreen to negate the real issue here, which is about equality in marriage.

If the institution of marriage is good enough for straight people, if it is good enough for a man and woman, then why is it not good enough for two women or two men if they choose to make that decision?

Then we have the member for Calgary Southeast. I have had some debate with the member. An article in The Globe and Mail today states, “MP doubts social benefit of same-sex marriage”. As for seeing the arguments that are produced there, I guess we could spend several days just debating how ridiculous they are, because he is resting his case on the idea that marriage is primarily or only about producing children, about procreation.

I think there are so many reasons why that is completely invalid. To begin with, all of us know couples, married people, who either choose not to have children or who maybe cannot have children. Are we saying that somehow their marriage is not to be validated or that it is not real? In fact, there are same sex marriages and same sex relationships where children are procreated. There are all kinds of families out there. There are different kinds of families. They have children or they do not, or parents are the biological parents or they are the adoptive parents. To me this is the whole point of the debate: it is to recognize the reality in our society that a family is not just one thing as defined by the Conservative Party of Canada. It is not that narrow.

The Minister of National Defence said that people evolve and decisions evolve. I would agree with that. It seems that only the members of the Conservative Party, which as we know dropped the word progressive from its name, are not able to evolve with this. They are denying many people in our society the same kind of respect, dignity and choice that other people have.

To rest one's case on the procreation argument is to rest it on a very false premise. I would recognize, though, that there are other members in the party. I read the article by the member for Calgary Centre-North, which appeared in his local paper or maybe in other papers, and I very much appreciated that the member had the courage to write an article and say where he stood: that he respected choice, dignity and people's rights and that he was in favour of the bill. I know that he is in a minority in his own party. There are a few others there as well. I very much respect that and the fact that he had the courage to speak out.

In terms of my own position, I do want to say that I do not see this as a debate about tolerance, as I said, or about destroying tradition or undermining other people's rights. In fact, what I believe is that one can actually be against same sex marriage and vote for the bill. I believe that is possible, because to me what this bill is about is our duty and responsibility as members of Parliament to uphold people's rights and choices.

I do not believe it is up to me as a member of Parliament to say to another couple that they have no right to get married. I think it is very possible that one can be opposed to same sex marriage for religious reasons, cultural reasons or personal reasons, whatever they might be, it does not matter. That choice is not taken away from those members, but I see a distinction between that and what our roles and responsibilities are as members of Parliament.

There are 308 of us and we have a very privileged position in this place. I believe that one of our core roles is to uphold the values of our society in terms of people's rights and their choices. I come here as a member of Parliament, no matter what my personal views are, and my duty is to uphold those rights for equality.

I would really encourage members of the Conservative Party to think about that, because at the end of the day surely it is my choice if I wish to marry my partner who is a woman. That is my choice to make as long as I am doing it within the bounds of civil marriage and so on. I cannot understand and I cannot see how any other member of the House or the state as a whole has a right to deny me that choice if I want to make that choice, if I choose to live common law or if I choose to be married with my partner who is a woman. To me, that is a very fundamental question in this bill that has been put forward.

The other question I want to deal with is the question of religious freedom. I know that members of the Conservative Party have raised this time and time again. I understand that within the faith community there are different points of view. There are some religious institutions and churches that feel very comfortable with the idea of same sex marriage and are actually willing to perform same sex marriages within a religious setting, churches such as the United Church of Canada, and I think that is great. But there is absolutely nothing in the bill that would force any religious institution, any synagogue, mosque, temple or church, to perform a same sex marriage if it did not want to.

The whole idea that this is somehow infringing on religious freedom is politically motivated. I am trying not to be negative in the debate. In the spirit of what others have said, I am trying to be very positive. I am trying to stick to the high ground. There have been some points where I have felt pretty damn mad about some of the comments made and the way the debate has taken place. There has been a political agenda. There has been an attempt to be divisive. There has been an attempt to go into ethnic communities try to divide people. Let us be clear. The bill protects religious freedom in every way. For anyone to say contrary is misrepresenting the bill.

We are getting thousands of e-mails, letters and faxes every day. We read through the ones that we can, but some go into the recycle bin. Some have been pretty vicious and others have had some pretty nasty messages in them. Some of them are quite hilarious and I have to laugh at them.

One that came forward said, “Even our Canadian goose mates for life. Let's learn from nature. Please vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage“. My response to that one might be something like Daffy Duck is no basis on which to base the principles of marriage.

Another one said, “Get control. You're an elected member of Parliament in a democratic country, therefore you are responsible to all Canadians, not your party. Use the authority that Canadians have given you to vote against Bill C-38“. I agree with that one. I am voting on the basis of upholding democratic choices for Canadians. It is funny how we interpret these things.

Another said, “Where is it going to end? End it now by voting against same sex marriage”. This message really plays into people's fear. Fear does exist in some communities. People are worried about losing their sense of tradition. Rather than MPs fueling and exploiting that fear, we have a responsibility to tell Canadians that this is not about fear. It is not about something ending. It is about something beginning. It is about extending the celebration of love and commitment into a civil institution of marriage. This is not something we should see as an end. We should see it as a great beginning.

I hope the debate on Bill C-38 will be a full and respectful debate, but I hope it does not go on forever. At some point we have to get the bill through. We have court decisions. Same sex couples are marrying every day, and we cannot go back and undo those marriages. I hope at the end of the debate we will recognize that we are reflecting the views of Canadian society and its values of dignity, respect and equality. Our party will be voting for the bill.

I want to thank all of the same sex couples who have devoted their lives to bringing us to this point. Many people put themselves on the line, both financially and personally, in terms of litigation. We should be grateful to them for the work they have done. I am speaking about groups like EGALE and Canadians for Equal Marriage which have done a tremendous amount of work. Let us now do our job and make sure that we vote for Bill C-38.

[The Environment, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, voluntary measures have already been shown to fail. In fact the government has a real problem delivering on the principles it claims to stand on. It throws money at health care with no plan to stop privatization. It throws money at child care with no plan for not for profit delivery. Now it has no plan on Kyoto.

Why is the government prepared to send money to Russia to buy credits instead of working at home to make our air cleaner by delivering on mandatory standards for fuel emissions? Why will he not do that?

[The Environment, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the environment minister.

Tomorrow, Parliament will vote on the NDP motion on mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars, but tomorrow the minister will join with the Conservatives and vote against mandatory fuel standards for cars, even though during the election the Prime Minister said that he was very favourable to NDP policies on the environment.

Our motion will make the air cleaner. Therefore why is he joining with the Conservatives to block this very good motion?

[Chinese Canadian Recognition and Redress Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to rise in the House to speak to the issue put forward in Bill C-333. I would like to thank the member for Durham for bringing it forward. I also would like to recognize that the member for Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette had originally put forward this bill in an earlier Parliament.

In speaking to the bill today, first, I want to say that the NDP agrees that this is a very critical issue. We are talking about a history of 62 years of legislative racism in the country, from 1885 to 1947, when Chinese Canadians had to pay the $50 head tax and then between the period of 1923 and 1947, when they had to face the Chinese Exclusion Act which prohibited immigration from China to Canada. We are talking about a very dark mark on Canada's history.

I would point out that if the head tax today were repaid to the approximately 81,000 people who paid it, we would be talking about $23 million. If that head tax today were put into a 2005 dollar value, it would be about $30,000 per person. We begin to get a sense of the enormity of that head tax and the financial cost and burden it imposed on families and on workers who came to Canada during that period.

As was noted by my hon. colleague from Burnaby--Douglas, I also want to recognize the work of Margaret Mitchell, the former member of Parliament who first raised this in the House around 1984. It was as a result of a radio program in Vancouver in the Chinese Canadian community when Hanson Lau put out a call, which is very well documented in the film In the Shadow of Gold Mountain by Karen Cho, a wonderful film that gives the history of this issue. It was because of that radio program that members of the community came forward to Margaret Mitchell and asked her to raise it in the House, which of course she did. She raised it many times in the House with really no response from the government of day, and never since that time.

I myself put forward a motion in Parliament in March of 2001. I reintroduced that motion in this Parliament. I want to talk about this issue. We are very concerned that the bill before us, while its intentions are good, does not deal with the issue as it is being debated and how it is being articulated in the whole community. Unfortunately, the bill does not reflect the debate and the position taken in the whole community.

We know for example that the Chinese national congress had an important class action case, with a number of individuals seeking compensation. Although that case was not won, the decision in July 2001 was important because part of the decision clearly put it back to Parliament. Part of the decision from the Ontario Superior Court was that Parliament should consider providing redress for Chinese Canadians who paid the head tax or who were adversely affected by the various Chinese immigration acts.

There has been a history within the community of various positions. I know the NCCC has advocated for about 4,000 claimants who want to see this issue dealt with. They want to see an official apology by the Government of Canada. They want to see a negotiation process take place whereby the issue of individual compensation can also be addressed. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not deal with that aspect, which is very troubling.

Regrettably the member for Durham did not answer the questions put forward by the member for Burnaby--Douglas. We want to know why the bill singles out one organization when other organizations like the NCCC have been very active on this file and in bringing it forward. Why would the bill only specify one organization ? Why would we have a bill that really does not reflect the position of the whole community? That is very important to do.

We want to put those questions to the member because this is the first hour of debate. We will go through a second hour of debate and then there will be a vote. We are very interested to know how the member intends to respond to the very real concerns in the community.

At a press conference today, members of the NCCC made it clear, and these are leading members of the Chinese-Canadian community, that in its current form the bill is not supportable. We want to get some indication from the member about these concerns as we approach the vote and what may happen in terms of the bill going forward to the committee where we would have an opportunity to look at some amendments to reflect what is going on in the community.

My motion, for example, talked about establishing a framework that would include a parliamentary acknowledgement of the injustice of these measures. It would include an official apology by the government to individuals and their families for the suffering and hardship caused. It would include individual financial compensation as well as community driven compensation through, for example, an anti-racism advocacy and educational trust fund. We need to look at these elements.

While I appreciate the member bringing forward the bill, I want to put it back to her in terms of responding to these concerns that have come from the community. We would agree, though, that this is a very urgent issue.

For example, Mr. Daniel Lee, an 84 year old World War II veteran lives in East Vancouver. In a recent story in the local press, he said that while he was still alive, he would like to receive one thing from the federal government, and that was an apology for the imposition of the head tax on his father and grandfather when they arrived from China.

We also have Mr. Kwan, who is now in his nineties and is one of the survivors. We should recognize that the group is getting smaller and smaller. As people become elderly, it becomes a very pressing issue. I know that Mr. Kwan as well has maintained a constant campaign and struggle to have the issue recognized, to have an apology, to have redress and to deal with the issue of compensation. It was very well laid out in the movie, In The Shadow of Gold Mountain .

I come to what is the position of the government. I know there has been a lot of debate about this. There is a concern about the precedents that will be set. The fact is we already have precedents in the country. The Japanese-Canadian redress is one where an historical injustice, based on a racist legislation or policies, has been recognized. It has been formally acknowledged, an apology given and redress and compensation provided.

What is important with the bill is that the government deal with the issue on its merits. What we have heard from the parliamentary secretary has not given us a lot of hope that the issue will move forward. I would implore the government, from our perspective in the NDP where we have worked on the issue now for more than two decades, and say to it that this really demands a response. It demands that the government be proactive.

The most important first step is for the government to sit down with representatives of the individuals and families involved and different organizational representatives in the community to begin a negotiation process. It is not up to me to say what it should be or what the compensation should look like, whatever it might be. The process has to be entered into in good faith between the Government of Canada and the community.

Negotiation means that we have to look at the issues. We have to look at where we can agree on certain aspects and what are the principles. If we had a commitment from the Liberal government that this could happen, people would see that as a step forward.

The member should respond to the concerns of the community about her bill and whether she is prepared to look at amendments to broaden its scope to reflect those concerns. I would implore the government to send a message that it will sit down and begin a negotiation around a framework that includes representatives of the communities and the families so we can finally deal with the issue of the terrible injustice done many years ago in a just way.

[Privilege, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege. I thank the House leader for the opposition for raising this because the NDP has a similar sentiment.

These two bills were defeated by a democratic vote in the House a couple of days ago. Now we have read that the two ministers and departments in question are going to go ahead anyway. This completely disregards the vote held in the House, and it is a very serious question. Surely it gets to the fundamental premise of why we are here in this place.

There was point of order before you this morning, Mr. Speaker, about something that happened in committee, and about how things can become frustrating.

A vote in the House is a definitive act. The most basic thing we do in this place is vote on a bill either yea or nay. When those two bills were defeated, it was the voice of Parliament speaking. For the two ministers in question to basically thumb their noses at Parliament is a matter of contempt.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take this question seriously. This is a minority Parliament. This is a Parliament where we take our business very seriously in terms of working together and being constructive. We expect to see the kind of respect and the proper consequences as a result of a vote taken place in the House.

This is a serious matter. For the reasons I just gave, it should be reviewed by the Speaker, a decision made and followed up.