Libby Davies

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government does not want to answer these questions about which Canadians want to know.

To add to that, do we know that the Alliance is running scared about the hard right turn the Liberals just took? It strikes me that hunting season has now just begun on the Prime Minister's legacy.

We know that marriage and marijuana will probably be the first to go. What about some other popular legacy items? What about Kyoto? The new Liberal leader voted for marriage, but then he said that he would turn the clock back when he took power.

Again, is anyone over there willing to answer what the government stands for? Will the government tell us whether the coal baron will not do the same for Kyoto and abandon it? Who will answer?

[Member for LaSalle--Émard, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting answer. Yesterday the Liberal Party elected its most conservative leader in history, a leader, by the way, who has yet to reveal which corporate donor bankrolled his campaign. Clearly, Mr. Democracy does not feel Liberal members deserve transparency before electing the next prime minister.

My question is for whoever over there thinks he or she knows what bank boy is up to. We do not know which bank contributed to the new leader's campaign.

Does anyone over there know what the new leader promised the banks? Does anyone over there know?

[Health, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last night in Vancouver's downtown eastside, drug users began using Insite, the first officially sanctioned, supervised injection facility in North America. It is an historic day marking a commitment to restore health and dignity to a community that has witnessed and withstood much pain and scrutiny.

I want to pay tribute to the members of VANDU, the Portland Hotel, PIVOT and the Coalition for Harm Reduction, who never gave up hope to make Insite a reality to save lives, despite many barriers. The courage and commitment of Bud Osborn, Ann Livingston, Dean Wilson, Chuck, Earl, Brian, Melissa and many others who worked tirelessly is a powerful example of how justice can be won and the voices and needs of the most marginalized can be heard.

I feel honoured to have worked with this community to help bring about these measures to stop overdose deaths and prevent infections like HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C. There is still much to be done but we have begun at the right place.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is very implicit in the question that came from the Liberal member. It really gets to the essence of the question that a moral standard is being imposed by a political party on other Canadians.

This is not a moral question but a question of a legal basis of human rights as applied through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is how we should be debating and applying this issue. How people think personally is one thing but as members of Parliament, our duty is to apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our duty is to uphold people's rights, not diminish them. To bring in a moral question completely detracts and undermines what the debate is really about.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really sad to hear a member of Parliament, a Liberal member, say that human rights around marriage equality is somehow a bogus issue. I really am at a loss to understand how someone would arrive at that position.

The work that Martin Luther King did in advancing the civil, political and legal rights of African Americans, of advancing the human rights of all people, is a tremendous step in the victory of equality and human rights in a global sense.

This is part of that struggle. We cannot separate it out. We cannot make a rationalization that somehow because it involved African Americans or people of colour that is human rights but this is not. This is about the application of the law. This is about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is about what we do without prejudice and without bias and what we say to Canadians.

I am very sorry to hear that the member thinks that this is somehow a bogus issue. I hope that people in his constituency will discuss that question with him.

What we should be doing here today is affirming and upholding human rights and on that basis voting down this reprehensible motion.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Canadian Alliance led off today on his motion by claiming that this issue of same sex marriage is not about human rights. That is how he started his debate today.

I think it needs to be said that he and his party are dead wrong. It is about human rights and no matter how the Canadian Alliance tries to squirm out of it or twist it or make it an issue that it is about the courts or grab any other kind of excuse they cannot escape judgment that this is about human rights. It is about their stance on human rights. It is about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is about the value of our society and how the law is applied to all people regardless of their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

I want to deal with one other statement that came from the leader of the Canadian Alliance this morning. He said that people had “contorted this issue into a human rights issue without public consensus”.

I find it reprehensible that he would challenge the constitutional rights of Canadians to seek justice before the courts. This is something that we have in this country. In fact I would say that we should be applauding the efforts of the people who have advanced this issue through the courts and asserted their own individual rights.

What is equally troubling is the notion of public consensus. What does he mean by this idea of public consensus? Is the Canadian Alliance suggesting that public consensus must exist for change to take place? Can we imagine if that position were applied to interracial marriage which in the past, as my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas has pointed out, was opposed in the United States and where certainly public opinion was very divided? There was no public consensus. Can we imagine if that same kind of position about public consensus were applied to that issue? I think even the Canadian Alliance would say, no, this would be unacceptable. Yet the principle is no different with regard to same sex marriage.

I do not believe that Parliament has the right to impose a definition of marriage that excludes some Canadians only for their sexual orientation, just as we have no right to outlaw interracial marriage or civil marriage between people of different faiths.

The proposed law that we hope that the Liberal government will bring in sooner than later is a permissive law and is not a mandatory law. This is a matter of a deeply personal choice. No one is forcing the leader of the Canadian Alliance to marry a man if he does not want to. Nor is there any suggestion that a religious institution must perform a marriage if it does not want to. This is about a civil marriage between people who are in a committed relationship and make their own choice that they want to marry, whether they are heterosexual or whether they are two women or two men.

Over the several months like every other member of the House I have had lots of e-mail, correspondence and discussions with people. At the end of the day having listened to all of the arguments about why this is wrong, I have to ask myself in terms of this motion that is before us today, that presents an exclusionary definition of marriage, what is it from the point of view of the Canadian Alliance that is wrong with this idea of equality in marriage.

I believe it comes from a very deeply ingrained fear, a perceived threat that somehow exists that displays a very deep prejudice toward people who are equal but different. This motion displays a very homophobic attitude. I know that members of the Canadian Alliance will hotly deny that, but at the end of the day when all the arguments are said and done, what it comes down to is a question of equality. I do not believe there is any escaping the fact that this motion through its definition is something that is exclusionary based on a homophobic attitude.

I can accept that members of Parliament personally are opposed to same sex marriage, that they somehow find it difficult for whatever cultural reasons or religious reasons, but I want to say that we have a privilege here that other Canadians do not have. We have the privilege to vote. The 301 of us in this place have the privilege to vote. I believe that as a member of Parliament I have a duty to uphold human rights, not to diminish them.

What one's conscience says is one thing. It is a very important matter. But I believe that our duty as members of Parliament is to apply the law fairly and to apply the charter fairly, without prejudice and without bias.

I am very proud that our leader, Jack Layton, and our party, advocate and support equality marriage. Our party has had a long tradition of defending minority rights, whether it was Japanese Canadians who were imprisoned during the war or the rights of aboriginal people who still face terrible discrimination. We defend those rights as we do the rights of gays, lesbians and transgendered people, even when it is not popular to do so, in fact, even more so when it is not popular to do so.

I have been delighted to see the celebration of marriage of same sex couples in my own community, including people like Elizabeth and Dawn Barbeau, who are part of the legal struggle and victory for marriage equality. I would like to congratulate Claudette, who is one of the interpreters in the House, and her partner Gail, who were married on June 28. They are part of our community. I am part of the community too and my choice to marry my partner, who is a woman, is surely our choice and no one else's.

I call on members today to vote down what I think is just a horrible motion. There is the whole spectre of the use of the notwithstanding clause. We asked the Leader of the Opposition today if he would clearly enunciate that the Alliance was not contemplating as one of the necessary steps using the notwithstanding clause and he would not be clear on that question. We have to call on all members of the House to say that this is really a very profound vote.

If we believe in equality for Canadians on all of the grounds that exist, then we should be striking down this motion. We should have the courage to do so, even though we know there are varying opinions in the community. We should do it on the basis of equality. We should do it on the basis of justice. We should do it on the basis that if two people, whoever they are, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman, make a choice that they want to have a civil marriage, they should be allowed to do so.

[Housing, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of British Columbians are living in leaky housing co-ops and face building envelope failure, unhealthy moulds and fungi. To add insult to injury, they have had to deal with a federal agency, CMHC, that has been incredibly difficult to deal with.

Will the minister responsible for housing and CMHC ensure that fair financial help is available to these families, who are tired of fighting? Will he commit that they will not face eviction and that their homes will be fixed and they will be healthy to live in? Will he do that?

[Health, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, surely enough of the political rhetoric. To date there has not been one penny in disaster relief for the health costs or for the hospitality industry. Not one Toronto Liberal MP can get the government to wake up, and now the city is facing the possibility of another travel advisory. However, instead of doing their jobs, what are they doing? Instead of responding to the crisis, the Liberals and the Alliance are trying to go on vacation early.

Could the minister responsible for Toronto tell his constituents and us in the House why he deserves a vacation more than the people in Toronto deserve--

[Health, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday the WHO criticized Canada's handling of SARS and Toronto again faces the possibility of a travel advisory. In particular, the WHO has criticized the lack of cooperation between Ottawa and the provinces. Yet there is still no health council as promised and there is no announcement on the national public health agency.

Would the minister to explain to us, because he prides himself on being the minister from Toronto, why, after almost four months after SARS hit, the Liberals are still asleep on the job?

[Glen Hillson, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I along with my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas, all members of our NDP caucus and our leader Jack Layton hear of the death of Glen Hillson, one of the greatest AIDS activists in B.C. and indeed the world.

The people of B.C. and Canada are indebted to Glen's heroic and tireless work for people with HIV-AIDS and his relentless advocacy for government action, research, support and dignity for persons with HIV-AIDS.

Glen Hillson, as the chair of BCPWA and one of the longest surviving people to live with AIDS, was much loved, enormously respected and inspired all of us to work for human rights, accessible health care and dignity for all people.

He will be deeply missed. I am sure that all members of the House join us in offering our sincere sympathy to his dear partner Gerald, his family and all who have known him and his profound presence in our lives.