Mark Warawa

[Conservative Party of Canada, May 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is the government in waiting and stands for what Canadians want.

Conservatives believe in honesty and accountability, not Liberal corruption and scandal.

Conservatives believe in the Canada Health Act and the right to access publicly funded health care, not a Liberal health care mess created by 12 years of Liberal mismanagement.

Conservatives believe in clean air, clean water and a healthy environment, not Liberal mismanagement where raw sewage is dumped into our oceans and much of our air is polluted.

Conservatives believe in the protection of Canadians, the right to live in safe communities. Dangerous criminals will serve their sentences in prison, not our neighbourhoods.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes, not Liberal waste.

Canadians want a government that keeps its promises. The Liberals have lost the right to govern this great country. Canadians want a Conservative government now.

[Message from the Senate, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third fiscal year that we are in regarding compassionate care. It is not a brand new program.

The review has been going on for a year now. The appeal board said that the minister needs to review this issue as an urgent and critical matter because time is sensitive.

This is an example of why Canadians have lost trust in the government: empty promises and empty words instead of action.

These people cannot wait. The government cut the funding from $191 million last year to $11 million this year. That is the type of review that the Liberals are doing: empty and broken promises.

When will the minister do the right thing and bring about the changes? The review board staff said she has the discretion to do that. We are waiting for her. When will she do it? I get empty answers. Something has to happen and it has to happen now. When will it happen?

[Message from the Senate, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government to give an account regarding the compassionate care program.

As we know, the compassionate care program is a program that was established and announced in the Speech from the Throne in 2002 and again in the budget speech of the following year. It has been with us for about two years now. It is there to provide financial assistance, EI benefits, to those who qualify and those who have a dying family member, so that they can spend the last six weeks of the life of that dying person providing compassionate care. It is a program that is built on the right premise but, unfortunately, the government has to give an answer, hopefully tonight, why it is not implementing that in a fair and compassionate way.

I have a 43-year-old woman in my riding of Langely who is dying. Her sister, Sue, had been taking care of her mother. Then she became diagnosed with cancer. Her sister came down from the Okanagan to take care of her and applied for compassionate care. As I said, it is a program for family members to take care of loved ones. Sue's family was told that her sister did not qualify for this program because the government did not consider a sister or a brother a member of the family. The family members were devastated by that news and they appealed it.

Since I brought this to the attention of this House, we have found numerous Canadians who have had the same treatment from the government, where it has said, “No, sorry, you're not going to be able to have that compassionate care. Sisters and brothers do not qualify. They are not considered family”.

We even had a dying woman whose sister-in-law was denied the compassionate care. She had no family left. Her husband and children had died. The sister-in-law was the only one to provide the care and the government said no.

We brought this to the attention of the minister in January. It will take about four months, by regulation, to make the changes. Actually, I am asking to let the dying person choose who is going to provide that care. The government has had ample time to solve this problem, to fix the legislation, and it keeps refusing.

We have been told that it is under review. So I asked to meet with the persons who were doing the review. I met with them last week and was told that they were aware of these problems and that the minister had the discretion to start the proceedings to fix the problem. The question is, why is the minister not doing anything?

Almost every week, I talk to the minister and I ask, “Are you going to do something now?” And it is always the same answer, “I'll deal with it when I want to deal with it”. These people do not have an unlimited amount of time for the government to dither. These people are dying and they need a loving one to take care of them. When will the government do the right thing?

The appeal board is called the board of referees. It made a decision which said:

The Board finds that there is no compassion in a piece of legislation that would not specifically prescribe a sibling to be a family member--

This Board believes that the failure of the Commission and the Minister to act swiftly in these matters of Compassionate Care amendments has only served to exacerbate the suffering endured by families as they care for a dying family member.

The Board believes the Minister and the Commission, in their failure to act urgently to rectify the inadequacies of the Compassionate Care legislation, can be viewed as being neglectful of the trust reposed in them.

I have met with the chairs of these boards of appeal. Both chairs are criticizing the government. Everybody is waiting. When will the government do the right thing?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from the wonderful people of Langley, my riding.

The petitioners state that marriage is the best foundation for families and for raising children, that the institution of marriage is being challenged and that it is in the jurisdiction of Parliament to decide the definition of marriage.

They therefore petition Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from across Canada. I have 13 petitions which contain hundreds of signatures. The petitioners ask that Parliament use all possible legislation, and administrative measures if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I bought a toaster or another electrical appliance, I would know it would not electrocute me because it would have a ULC sticker on it. It is a safety standard.

It is the same with immobilizers. Canadians are trusting that when we have immobilizers, they will be effective. The European standard is not effective. That is why the Insurance Bureau of Canada does not recognize the European standard. That is why the Cadillac Escalade is being stolen. It has a European standard. Thieves can steal that type of car in seconds because it does not have an effective immobilizer.

I appreciate the speech from my colleague, but it did not answer the question. The question is, why would we use an inferior European standard? The Insurance Bureau of Canada and insurance companies right across the country are saying that it is not effective and we should not use it. Why would we permit the use of an ineffective standard? Let us go Canadian.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about immobilizers. An immobilizer is an electronic device in motor vehicles, in cars and trucks, that keeps them from being started unless one has the proper key. About 65% of the vehicles manufactured and sold in Canada now have immobilizers.

This is something I have been working on for about the last five years. I presented a bill to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and it ended up here in Parliament. I am really glad that an announcement was made just recently that as of September 1, 2007, there will be immobilizers in all new vehicles registered in Canada. That is very exciting.

However, what I want to speak about today is the immobilizers that we are going to be approving. Will they work? We want Canadians to be safe. People rely on Canada. If Canada says that a thing is safe, if the government says that vehicle or that appliance is safe, there is a trust, or there should be.

We should make sure that what we are approving and requiring is safe and effective. There is a Canadian standard, which is one of the top standards in the world. In fact, Transport Canada officials went to Europe and spoke in favour of the Canadian standard of immobilizers because it is the best in the world. There is an inferior standard, which is the European standard. There are some manufacturers that use the European standard.

Here is what I am asking for and what I am hoping to get an answer to. Why would we approve a European standard to be used in Canada when a Canadian standard is the standard that Transport Canada was arguing for when its officials went over to Europe?

Auto crime costs Canadians about $1 billion a year. About 35 people will die this year due to an auto thief driving a stolen vehicle. It has a huge impact on our society. Hundreds of people are injured every year by thieves driving a stolen vehicle.

I have some examples. In Windsor: “Woman killed by a stolen car, a tragedy”. That was just on March 14. I have another: “High-speed crash, auto thief kills young woman”.

This example is a tragedy in Richmond, British Columbia, with a 32 year old victim. He was a youth pastor. He was a gifted pianist. He was killed by a car thief rushing through Richmond.

Another one is a tragedy in Maple Ridge. The article states that “a driver...dragged a gas station attendant seven kilometres to his death under a stolen vehicle...he said he could hear the guy screaming under the car”.

“What kind of person could do that?” said the victim's cousin. “They have to have absolutely no conscience”.

Our typical auto thief is a 27 year old male addicted to crystal meth. He is stealing the car to commit another crime and has 14 prior criminal convictions. That is from a recent study.

The people who are stealing the cars are dangerous people. We need to have immobilizers in the vehicles to protect Canadians so Canadians do not get killed.

Through attrition, as the vehicles that do not have immobilizers come off the road and these new ones come out, Canadians will be protected, so I applaud the efforts, but what I am asking is, why not use the Canadian standard that is effective? The European standard is not effective.

The Cadillac Escalade tops the list for vehicles that are being stolen. General Motors said, “While we regret any vehicle being stolen, this is clear evidence that the Cadillac Escalade is in high demand”. The Escalade comes with standard various anti-theft pieces of equipment. It comes with a European immobilizer. It is at the top of the list. It is easy to steal and that is why these people are stealing them.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak again on behalf of my constituents of Langley on the government's plan to change the historic definition of marriage. Thousands of Langley residents responded to my request for input and 96% said they want me to vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is exactly what I will do.

The Prime Minister's plan to change the definition of marriage is an attack on Canadian society and on religious freedoms. His comments on marriage have been dishonest and need to be challenged.

The people of Langley have plenty to say about marriage. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails and cards. Here is a sample:

I want to thank you for your vote in favour of the amendment to Bill C-38. Your support for marriage between a man and a woman is very crucial at this point in Canadian history and I encourage you to remain steadfast in your efforts. As Bill C-38 works its way through the parliamentary process, I ask you to work to persuade your parliamentary colleagues who may still be undecided about traditional marriage. As you know, every vote will count when this bill gets to third reading. Thank you again for standing on behalf of marriage. In the next election, I will be certain to support a candidate who shares my convictions about marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Parliament voted on the definition of marriage three times in the past six years. In 1999 the Prime Minister and many of the current cabinet members supported a motion that defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It passed 216 to 55.

Two years ago the Prime Minister promised Canadian religious leaders that he would never permit the definition of marriage to be changed. Then in 2003 the Prime Minister and many of those same cabinet ministers voted against the traditional definition, causing it to be defeated 137 to 132.

During the last election many of his cabinet ministers were again promising Canadians that they would defend traditional marriage. Promises made, promises broken.

On April 12 the House voted on the Conservative motion to “protect the traditional definition of marriage, to provide the same rights and benefits to same sex unions, and to protect the religious rights of all Canadians”. That motion represented the democratic wishes of the majority of Canadians. Tragically, the Prime Minister ignored those rights of the majority and whipped the vote of his cabinet. The democratic rights of Canadians were defeated in a vote of 164 to 132. That was a sad day for democracy.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been dishonest and have been misleading Canadians in three major ways. They have been saying that redefining marriage is a human rights issue. That is wrong. They have said that redefining marriage is required in the charter. That is wrong. They have said that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms. That is wrong.

Let us start with human rights. Same sex marriage is not a fundamental human right. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights upheld a New Zealand court decision that same sex marriage is not a basic universal human right. No national or international court or human rights tribunal has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human right.

The Prime Minister knows that the decisions of the United Nations and international courts do not support what he has been saying. Why is the Prime Minister being dishonest and whipping his cabinet? Because without manipulated support the bill would fail.

The second way that the government is misleading Canadians is with regard to equality rights. The Liberal government said only equal access to civil marriage would fully comply with the charter. It has said that any institution other than marriage is less than equal. That is utter nonsense. Same sex unions have equal rights.

The Liberals have also misled Canadians by saying that the Conservative Party is against equality rights. To the contrary, and let me be absolutely clear, the Conservative Party supports equal rights and benefits for same sex couples. We are the only party that believes in the charter rights of all Canadians, not just a select few. Gay and lesbian couples have equal rights to central social institutions, such as legal unions, and have equal rights.

The justice committee began studying same sex marriage in November 2002. Many members and witnesses at the committee thought that the civil union option for same sex couples should have been explored further. We need to openly debate the potential for creating a civil union which could provide equal rights and benefits in accordance with the will of the majority of Canadians.

Equal rights do not equate to same rights. Canada has many examples and instances where Canadians have fought for equal rights, but not the same rights. For example, the child tax benefit cheques normally go to the mother, not the father. Quebec says it is equal, but not the same, therefore suggesting its distinct society clause. Men and women are equal, but not the same.

The Supreme Court has not ruled that marriage must be redefined. The Supreme Court has not ruled that the definition of marriage must be changed to allow civil unions. The Supreme Court has said that Parliament has the authority to redefine marriage if it so wishes.

The majority of Canadians do not want the definition of marriage changed. The power hungry, undemocratic Liberal government is bent on changing marriage, ignoring the rights of the majority of Canadians. The government could not care less about the consequences of its agenda. It is misleading Canadians and forging ahead with its social experiment, changing the Canada that we all know and love.

The Liberals want to change the historical religious definition of marriage which predates our government. They also plan to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution and take away the charitable status of faith based organizations. This is not the Canada that Canadians want. The Prime Minister's values are not Canadian values.

The third way that Canadians are being misled is the protection of religious rights. Bill C-38 does not protect religious rights. The third clause is merely a recognition and has no teeth whatsoever. Saying that the civil marriage act will protect religious freedoms is dishonest and misleading. The solemnization of marriage is in the provincial jurisdiction. This is very clear and the Liberals had their hands slapped by the Supreme Court.

If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect religious freedoms, he would have drafted amendments to the Income Tax Act on charitable status. Before tabling Bill C-38 he had the time to make those changes, but he chose not to.

Bill C-38 is not about human rights, but about the Liberals attacking religious rights. Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and other faith based organizations are all vulnerable to activist attacks in the courts and human rights tribunals.

Canada's judicial courts and human rights tribunals have a near perfect record of finding against religious rights. We have seen this in Oshawa, where a Catholic school was charged with discrimination for not allowing Marc Hall's boyfriend into the graduation dance. In greater Vancouver, the Knights of Columbus were charged for cancelling a booking for a same sex wedding reception. More than 50 marriage commissioners have resigned or been fired because of their religious freedoms and rights.

This is just the start. One of Pope John Paul II's appointed bishops, Bishop Fred Henry, formerly of Windsor, who celebrated the mass at the funeral of the hon. Paul Martin Sr., and is now the Bishop of Calgary, is being brought before the Human Rights Commission for his defence of marriage. Who is next? Teachers in faith based schools will have to resign or be forced to lecture against their religious beliefs.

Members of the Liberal government are describing religious institutions as being discriminatory and have argued already that their charitable tax status should be revoked. This would cause the closure of churches, synagogues, mosques and any faith based organization that disagrees with the Liberal government.

The attacks have just started. Marriage is a historic religious union that predates government. From time immemorial it has been a union of one man and one woman. It is more than just two people uniting. It is God being part of it in joining the union according to His will.

The government should not change the traditional definition of marriage. I will be voting against the government's Bill C-38.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also have five petitions dealing with marriage. The petitioners are asking Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions.

The first is from a number of residents from Langley in the greater Vancouver area. They are petitioning Parliament to consider autism therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment. They are also asking for the creation of an academic chair at a university in each province to teach treatment to deal with autism.