Mark Warawa

[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.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-280. The purpose of the bill is to address the EI surplus that has been accumulating over the last six years since the Liberals set aside the rate setting process.

Bill C-280 contains two key elements: first, to establish a separate account to ensure that access to funds raised through premiums do not go to general revenue; and second, to ensure that the government cannot set aside the rate setting process without House approval.

The bill also proposes to increase the size of the Employment Insurance Commission to 17 members from the present 4. The proposal to increase the size of the commission is, I believe, an unreasonable request. It is both unwieldy and costly. I will not be able to support that part of the bill but I would strongly support it if an amendment were made not to increase the size of the commission.

The Conservative Party believes that the government needs to be held accountable for a cumulative balance in the EI insurance account, which continues to grow year after year despite repeated objections from the Auditor General that it violates the Employment Insurance Act.

Through the continued suspension of a fair and transparent rate setting process, the government continues to allow the surplus to accumulate. The Conservative Party believes that this surplus is the property of those who contributed to employment insurance, that being the workers and employers.

The $46 billion accumulated national surplus from the employment insurance system reflects a deliberate program of overtaxing workers and their employers to divert those moneys to fund other government priorities. This practice is misleading, dishonest and violates the law. It has attracted the criticism of the Auditor General and is an unfair and regressive tax. Yes, it is an actual tax.

Instead of funding government spending increases out of a more progressive income tax, the use of the EI surplus for that purpose takes proportionately more from the working poor and small businesses. As such, it taxes those who can least afford it and shifts the burden from those with the means to do so.

The EI program has a problem and that problem is the fact that it has a $46 billion surplus.

Another part of the EI program, which is called compassionate care, is another example of sloppy government legislation and mismanagement. The compassionate care program, which was announced two years ago in the budget speech and became effective on January 1, 2004, was established to ensure that dying Canadians could receive compassionate care in the last days of their lives. The unfortunate part of the program is that the sloppy legislation did not appropriately define who could take care of that dying person. The people who qualify as caregivers are the children and the spouses or the common law spouses. Sisters and brothers do not qualify.

The compassionate care program was funded last year for $190 million but only $11 million of that was actually used. A large number of people who applied for compassionate care were denied it.

I have a story involving a constituent named Sue who came to my office and told me her story about applying for compassionate care. Sue, who is 43 years old, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Sue was taking care of her 73 year old mother. Her sister came down from the Okanagan to take care of Sue. She got released from her employer and went down to Human Resources Canada to apply for compassionate care. However she was told by human resources that although they felt sorry for what was happening to her sister, she did not qualify for compassionate care because a sister was not considered part of the family.

That sounded absurd, so we checked it out. We found out absolutely that human resources does not consider a sister to be part of the family.

I immediately brought this to the attention the Minister of Human Resources and was told that the program was under review. I asked the minister to use discretion and to keep Sue and her sister together. I was informed that there was a category called “other”. What is “other”? I found out that the EI program never defined “other”. It was announced, as I said, two years ago and started in 2004. One can apply online right now for compassionate care and, sure enough, the word “other” is one of the categories. However If one clicks on the “other” button the application goes through but pretty soon the answer comes back that since there is no definition for “other” the application is denied. It became very frustrating.

I started receiving emails from other Canadians. I received an email from Olga in Ontario. Olga, who had a sister in a similar situation, went out to Richmond, British Columbia to take care of her sister. She also applied for compassionate but was denied because the minister defines a sister as not part of the family under this program.

Olga appealed the decision and went before the Board of Referees, which is the appeal board for the compassionate care under the EI program. The appeal board did the right thing and said that a sister was absolutely a part of the family. It told Olga that she should be able to take care of her sister in her dying days.

However the unimaginable happened. The government appealed the appeal board decision. It is saying that Olga cannot take care of her sister because, why? Because it has a program where it has not defined “other”?

It is wrong, it is confusing and it leaves Canadians who are in the last days of their life not being taken care of. The government is keeping families apart.

It was very frustrating to find out that $190 million was budgeted for this program last year and the review process that is going on with this EI compassionate care, and the government is denying families to stay together. Sisters cannot take care of sisters and brothers cannot take care of brothers. Do members know what the government has done? The government has reduced the $190 million down to $11 million. This is how it reviews this program. This is how it is dealing with families who are pleading for compassionate care.

We must remember that the EI fund has a $46 billion surplus and the government is not accountable. It allows $190 million for a compassionate care EI program and the way it is reviewing this is by saying that instead of the program having $190 million, it will only be $11 million this year.

When I asked to be part of that review process I was told that I could not because the minister's staff was dealing with it. I want to be part of that. Canadians need to be part of that.

The solution to this is to keep it simple. People who are dying should be able to decide who takes care of them in the last days of their life. This may be a sister or it be may a mother or father, but I believe people who are dying have the right under the Constitution of Canada and under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say who they want taking care of them.

The review we can look at is whether six weeks long enough. The compassionate and easy thing to do, which I believe the minister has the discretion to permit, is to allow the people who are dying to decide who they want taking care of them. Of course the care provider has to qualify for EI benefits, which is reasonable, but not permitting family to take care of family because that has not been defined is beyond comprehension

This program is just another example of a government creating sloppy legislation. It knows the right things to do but it does not carry them out. It is broken promises. It promised to take care of Canadians but it does not follow through. We hear a lot of rhetoric and excuses while Canadians are dying.

I support the accountability that the bill presents.

[Petitions, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions both calling for Parliament to use whatever legislation is necessary, 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.

[Petitions, April 6th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. The first one is from the Canadian Coalition for Democracies. This organization wishes to draw the attention of Parliament that we, as Canadians, need to respect and support peace, liberty and democracy around the world.

[Petitions, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from residents of my riding of Langley and other areas in the Lower Mainland of greater Vancouver. The petitioners call upon Parliament to allow doctors to apply for Canadian accreditation in their home countries, and for Canada to process their immigration applications on a priority basis during this serious physician shortage.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could stand here today and say that I am happy that hepatitis C victims were being cared for and that they were receiving the compensation they needed. Unfortunately, we cannot.

The Liberal government has yet to do the right thing and Canadians continue to suffer. I am saddened that after all the effort the official opposition has put into getting compensation for hepatitis C victims, all we hear from the government is excuses. How long do Canadians have to wait for the care they need?

The human tragedy that has resulted from the hepatitis C crisis is truly a scandal. The Conservative Party believes that all hepatitis C victims deserve fair and timely compensation. Our members have continually addressed the unacceptable length of time that the government is taking to provide the compensation.

The federal government continues to ignore the health needs of hepatitis C victims who were infected outside of the 1986 to 1990 window. With over $1 billion remaining in the compensation fund, funding is not the problem, so why the delays?

The government passed the bill onto the provinces to provide compensation to the victims. The Conservative Party challenges the Liberal government to clearly define federal and provincial jurisdiction for this health crisis. We believe there should be an established compensation formula for public health emergencies to avoid squabbles over the money while patients suffer.

The issue of hepatitis C compensation has nothing to do with parliamentarians debating the pros and cons in the House. It has everything to do with honouring and respecting the victims who contracted this disease through no fault of their own.

My speech today will focus on some of those victims in my riding of Langley who have shown courage and commitment to share their stories with the hope that someone in this House will listen and respond with compassion. This speech is about their stories.

Dawn Brown writes this:

As my Member of Parliament I need your help to act on behalf of Hep-C victims. My father, Robert Dennis survived an aortic aneurysm and subsequent open heart surgery in 1975 and required a blood transfusion in 1976. He acquired Hepatitis-C from that transfusion and was sent home after treatment where he managed an active lifestyle due to my mother's diligence. This was until 1996 when he developed advanced liver tumours which went into his back, on his vertebrae. A responsible blood supply system would have alerted him years ago to the dangers he faced and possibly done something to avert or delay his circumstances. My father, once an active grandfather of six, died a painful death from complications of liver cancer in 1998. We were robbed of our future with him by the irresponsible acts of a few, covered up by the many.

No amount of compensation will ever satisfy me for what has happened, but my father started this compensation campaign while he was still alive and my mother continued to call for action by the Red Cross after his death. Her marriage of 51 years ended with her acting as a caregiver and as a result she developed stress-related poly-neuromyalgia and suffered until her death last November. My family and I are outraged and insulted to be excluded from the federal government's failure to compensate my father after he served his country in the Second World War and asked for nothing in return.

Please stand up for the rights of all these affected families and let me know you will support including all Hep-C victims in the existing compensation fund.

Carol Woloschuk wrote me a letter stating:

In January 1980, I was seriously burned when my clothing caught on fire during an incident in my home. During my three-month hospitalization and for approximately another ten years, I received transfusions of multiple blood products for ongoing skin grafting and correctional procedures. During this period of time, I was never warned that I might have been exposed to the Hepatitis-C virus from tainted blood. It was quite by accident that I found out of this exposure, when I myself tried to donate blood. To this day, I still have not been contacted in any official capacity of possible infection as a result of these contaminated blood products

Living with Hepatitis-C has many downsides, a few of which I will attempt to outline:

1. A certain stigma, when relatives or health professionals learn of your condition, they fear contact with you.

2. Your health varies from day to day--often you are so fatigued you can barely walk from one room to another without complete exhaustion.

3. Inability to hold down a job due to this exhaustion and lack of stamina, which in our family has caused both emotional and financial stress, almost to the point of marital breakdown.

4. Due to a compromised immune system, what is a normal cold to an average person has put me in hospital with pneumonia.

She ends:

As a Canadian citizen I have always gone out to vote, but at this time I feel very let down by my federal government. I do hope that you and other MPs will fight on our behalf to see that we also are fairly compensated.

The last letter is from a constituent who wishes to have her identity confidential. She writes:

To give you a little glimpse into my life as someone living with Hepatitis-C: In 1981 I was a sleeping passenger in a single-vehicle crash on Highway One. The driver had fallen asleep at the wheel. I received life-long injuries that every day I am aware of. I had both my feet cut off and was trapped under a collapsed dashboard and passenger seat. My lower back was broken in three places. I also received tainted blood during the resulting surgery. From the time I was 17 to 28 years I could never get up in the morning, I was weak and never hungry, my hair fell out a lot and I could never understand what was wrong with me. I did not know about my contracting Hep-C until 2000. So many years have passed that I have lived with this thing damaging my body and my life. I am now 40-years old and suffer with health problems from this infection of bad blood. I read about other people my age dying from liver problems. That is very serious to me. My children would be devastated. I have three children, who also may have Hep-C, but I will not put them through the blood-taking process.

I have not been able to work since 1985 and my pension, should I live to age 65, will be $12.00 per month. I really need to have compensation because we cannot afford to live on one income and I cannot work. Our debts are more than we can pay and our house floods and needs repairs. We have no savings or investments and have a negative amount in our bank account. Our life is a struggle because I suffer from this disease.

These people need our help: 5,000 victims receive the compensation, victims of 1986 to 1990, but 6,000 hepatitis C victims have not received the compensation they need. As of July 2004, the hepatitis C victim fund had declined from $1.2 billion to $1.05 billion. Last year that fund earned $60 million more than it paid out. Since the fund was established, $378 million has been paid out to around 5,000 victims. Offering compensation to surviving victims is a no-brainer. To not offer this compensation, instead to offer excuses, is nothing short of cruel.

As we debate this motion in the House today, people like Dawn and Carol and others do not want to hear excuses from the Liberal government. They want us together to solve this problem. They want us to bring common sense and compassion into this House. They want us to do the right thing today.

I ask every member in the House to join me in supporting the motion to immediately provide compensation to all those who have contracted hepatitis C through tainted blood.

[Health, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, another Liberal cover-up has surfaced.

Health Canada just completed a marijuana educational program. The program includes a web page that demonstrates the harmful health effects caused by marijuana use. The problem is that this program is being covered up because it will hurt the Prime Minister's plan to decriminalize marijuana.

Who ordered the cover-up? Was it the justice minister or the Prime Minister?

[Petitions, March 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present 35 petitions with over 2,330 signatures. They are all from Langley residents. The petitioners state that traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the God ordained building block of the family and the bedrock of a civil society. Therefore, they urge that Parliament protect the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.