Mark Warawa

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak on behalf of my constituents in Langley, British Columbia, to this important issue facing all Canadians.

I told my constituents that I would listen to their positions on the same sex marriage debate and that I would represent them here in Ottawa. Langley residents have been loud and clear. The vast majority believe that the traditional definition of marriage should not be changed.

The people of Langley have had plenty to say about marriage. I have received thousands of letters, e-mails and cards and I will read one of them. It states, “We personally are opposed to the idea of amending the definition of marriage based on God's direction in his word. Marriage is not just a commitment between two loving people. We thank you for at least hearing from and being accountable to your constituents”.

Over 3,000 Langley residents responded to my request for their input and 96% said that they wanted me to vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman excluding all others.

Canadians want a free vote on this legislation. Why are the Liberals so afraid of a free vote? Parliament voted twice on the definition of marriage in the past five years. In 1999 the Prime Minister and many of the current cabinet ministers supported a motion that defended marriage as the union of one man and one woman excluding 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 traditional marriage causing it to be defeated. During the last election, only months ago, many of his cabinet ministers were again promising Canadians that they would defend traditional marriage. Promises made, promises broken.

The Liberal government does not want a free vote on this issue. It is also misleading Canadians in three major ways. First, it said that redefining marriage was a human rights issue. That is wrong. Second, it said that redefining marriage would erode equality rights under the charter. That is also wrong. Third, it said that the Civil Marriage Act would protect religious freedoms. That is also wrong.

Let us start with the human rights issues. 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 was 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.

If the Prime Minister really believed that same sex marriage was a human rights issue he would have to force his entire caucus to vote for the bill. However the Prime Minister is only whipping his cabinet, not the entire caucus, to support the bill. The Prime Minister is aware that the decision of the United Nations does not support what he has been saying. Why is the Prime Minister whipping his cabinet? It because without manipulated support the bill would fail and that would be embarrassing.

The second way the Liberal government is misleading Canadians is regarding equity rights. The Liberal governments says that only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with charter equity guarantees. It has also said that any institution other than marriage is less than equal. That is utter nonsense. Same sex unions have equal rights.

The Liberals would also mislead Canadians by saying that the Conservative Party is against equality rights. To the contrary. Let me be absolutely clear that the Conservative Party supports equal rights and benefits for same sex couples. We are the only party that believes in the Charter of Rights for all Canadians, not just a select few.

Many gay and lesbian Canadians have long term relationships. They contribute to our communities and pay taxes. Gay and lesbian couples have equal access to central social institutions, such as legal unions, and have equal rights.

The justice committee began studying the same sex marriage issue in November 2002. Many members and witnesses at that 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 that could provide equal rights and benefits in accordance with the will of millions of Canadians.

Equal rights are not same rights. Canada has many instances where Canadians have equal rights but not the same rights. For example, child tax benefit cheques normally go to the mother and 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 said that Parliament has the authority to redefine marriage if it so wishes. Canadians do not want the definition of marriage to change, but the government does, and it is ignoring the wishes of the majority of Canadians. By legislating changes to marriage to include same sex unions, is the government aware of the unintended consequences?

The government is misleading Canadians and is forging ahead with its social experiment, changing the Canada that we all know and love. It is changing historical religious definitions such as marriage without any thought of the consequences. The government wants to legalize marijuana, legalize prostitution, and take away charitable status from faith based organizations. Who knows what will be next.

The third way the government is misleading us is with respect to the protection of religious freedoms. Bill C-38 would not protect religious freedoms. The third clause is merely a recognition and has no teeth whatsoever. Saying that the civil marriage act would protect religious freedoms is dishonest and misleading.

The solemnization of marriage is a provincial jurisdiction. That is very clear, and the Liberals had their hands slapped by the Supreme Court. They were reminded of this in the draft legislation. If the Prime Minister really wanted to protect religious freedoms, instead of hiding behind the charter, he would have drafted amendments to the Income Tax Act and charitable status act. Before tabling Bill C-38, he had the time to draft amendments, but he chose not to. Instead, he has included a gutless clause hoping that Canadians would take the word of his scandal-ridden government.

The Liberal government is insulting the intelligence of Canadians. Canadians do understand the difference between provincial and federal jurisdictions. They do understand that the Constitution creates divided jurisdiction over marriage. To ensure consistency across Canada, the founders of Confederation gave Parliament the responsibility for the definition of marriage and for laws governing divorce. The federal government has traditionally relied on the legal definition of marriage, which until recently applied exclusively to opposite sex couples. The provinces are responsible for the solemnization of marriage, which includes licensing and registration.

Bill C-38 is not about human rights. It is about the Liberal government 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 freedom rights, that are under attack by activists. We saw this in Oshawa where the civil courts ruled that a Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall by not allowing his boyfriend to the graduation dance. In Vancouver the Knights of Columbus were hauled before the B.C. human rights tribunal for cancelling a booking for a same sex wedding reception. More than 50 marriage commissioners have resigned or been fired because of their religious beliefs. They are not protected. What does this say? It says that religious freedoms are not being protected.

That is just the start. Marriage commissioners are giving up their livelihood because their religious beliefs are not being protected. Will teachers in faith based schools have to resign because they will be forced to lecture against their religious beliefs?

Already members of the Liberal government are describing religious institutions as being discriminatory and have argued that their charitable tax exempt status should be revoked. Shame on them. The attacks on religious freedoms by this intolerant, biased government have already begun.

Marriage vows are a bond with God. Marriage is more than just two couples uniting. God is part of it, and joining the union according to His will. God is present and part of the marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. That is what I am standing here to protect. I will be voting against Bill C-38.

[Transport, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, auto theft is an epidemic problem costing Canadians over $1 billion every year. I have been working on this issue for the last five years and I am pleased that the Conservative Party's pressure on the government has been successful.

All new vehicles registered in Canada will soon be equipped with an immobilizer as standard equipment, making those vehicles almost impossible to steal. The Canadian standard immobilizer is the best type. Why would the transport minister also permit the inferior, ineffective European standard to still be used, putting vehicles at risk to be stolen?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question regarding her comments on our charter but before I do, I want to thank the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I serve with him on the justice committee and he has been leading the charge on this matter and is doing a great job. I want to personally give him the kudos that he deserves.

Regarding the comments that we have just heard on our charter and that the issues are not simplistic, I acknowledge that there are a number of issues that we need to consider when we deal with organized crime, marijuana grow ops, and so on. When we do the simple math and realize that about $1.2 million per year is what an average grow op produces, that is a lot of money. It is not 85% but the vast majority of grow ops are run by organized crime. Marijuana is still an illegal substance in Canada, so it is being distributed through organized crime.

It is estimated there are 50,000 grow ops in Canada, and when we do the math it means that $60 billion annually is produced by illegal marijuana grow ops. What is that being used for? Some 80% of it is going across the border to be traded for illegal dangerous weapons, cash and cocaine which come back into our country. We all recognize it is a huge problem.

We all honour the charter as a wonderful and valuable part of Canada to guarantee that our rights are protected. We are dealing with a very dangerous element that has come into our country and is taking away our rights. It is sucking $60 billion out of Canada every year. It funds organized crime and it is causing huge impacts on our health care. We need more police resources. We need an educational program, a national drug strategy to fight this.

Is the member suggesting that the charter be used to protect this very dangerous element in our society? Is she suggesting that the charter be used to protect criminal activity?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House this morning. I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright for the excellent points he made and the Bloc for bringing the motion to us today. It is particularly exciting because, as was pointed out by my colleague, this is a joint effort by the opposition to bring justice and protection to Canadians.

We are all concerned about this issue. A vast majority of Canadians are law-abiding, hardworking, generous, loving people but in any society there is an element that can cause a severe problem and we have that here in Canada right now. When there is a severe problem, there has to be a severe solution. When there is severe crime, there needs to be a severe consequence to that crime. What is happening right now, as was mentioned by a number of members, we have a reputation of being soft on crime. Canada has this growing problem because this is the reputation we have.

I want to share some of the examples of the problems we have. We have marijuana grow ops; identity theft; illegal drugs, such as cocaine; and scams galore. We have these problems because when people are caught, the consequences are very minor and they serve only one-thirds of their sentence. The reputation we have is that if someone wants to do crime, Canada is a great place to do it because the consequences are almost nothing.

In my riding of Langley, marijuana grow ops are a problem. B.C. bud is famous worldwide. We have approximately 15,000 grow ops in British Columbia. Canada has about 50,000 grow ops but a large percentage of them are in British Columbia. A typical grow op has 300 marijuana plants and the value of a mature plant is $1,000. Therefore the average grow op has $300,000 worth of plants and four crops can be produced a year. If we do the math, every grow op will be netting approximately $1.2 million with an initial cash outlay of about $30,000.

Some of these mom and pop operations that do not have the money are funded by organized crime. Most of the grow ops in Canada are run and funded by organized crime. Why are they doing it? It is because the chances of them being caught are low and if they do get caught, the average fine is $1,500, which is ridiculous. We have heard that the government plans to increase the penalties. However, in looking through the records, I did not find anyone who had received a maximum sentence, so increasing the penalties is not the solution.

Having people convicted of organized crime show how they acquired their assets, such as the house or houses or the fancy new cars, and having them prove these assets were not acquired by illegal gains or they would be forfeited, is an excellent plan. I would like to share a story to give an example.

Phu Son, a resident of Langley, came to Canada in 1994 at the age of 38. Mr. Son, his wife and family immediately claimed social assistance and stayed on social assistance for the next 10 years. In that period of time, while his only source of income was social assistance, Mr. Son came to acquire three homes, two of them in Langley and one in our neighbouring community of Abbotsford.

On March 22 Phu Son was convicted of producing a controlled substance, a marijuana grow op, in one of his Langley homes. He was given a nine month conditional sentence and, as we all know, a conditional sentence is served at home. Why would he serve it at home? I am not sure; maybe to take care of the marijuana plants. He was given 25 hours of community service, a $100 find and a curfew of 8 p.m. That is coming down hard on organized crime.

A person on social assistance should not have the financial resources to own three houses. It appears obvious that those houses were purchased with drug money. This gentleman should have to show how he got those houses.

All of us are hardworking, honest Canadians. My father raised me to work hard and be honest. I have T4 slips for everything I make and I pay taxes on everything I make. Does Mr. Son have T4 slips? I think that needs to come to light.

It is time for our government to get tough on crime. We have seen many cases like the one I have just shared and they are all treated the same way, with a soft response from the courts and the government. The government has the responsibility to give direction to the courts. What are the consequences? I believe we need to take a very serious look at minimum sentencing. When we get multiple sentencing, we need to give progressively stiffer sentences so there is a deterrent. We do not have deterrents in Canada right now. We are soft on crime.

It is unfortunate how routine a case, like the one I have just shared of Mr. Son, has become. His case is epidemic in the drug trade on the lower mainland and Canada. Until the government and the courts get tough and put some teeth into fighting drug crime, there will be more of this continuing.

Our communities are at risk. Grow ops are ripping off one another. Now booby traps are being put in these homes and they are using 40 times the normal power. We heard of a townhouse complex of 28 units in Coquitlam which had electricity bills of $12,000 a month when a typical bill would be $120. That is 100 times the norm. These homes have booby traps, which pose a high risk of fire. If fire department personnel entered these homes to fight a fire, there is a risk they could be electrocuted or shot by these booby traps.

We need to get tough on crime. What is being proposed today, I believe, will do that. The onus will be on individuals to show how they acquired their assets, as any one of us would have to do if we were audited by Revenue Canada. It would ask us how we got these assets. It is a democratic thing to do. As I said at the beginning, if we have a serious problem, we need to have a serious solution. In Canada right now, we do not.

[Petitions, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present two petitions here today. These petitions were presented to our Langley riding, and the petitioners strongly oppose any legislation that would in any way change the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and excluding all others.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent critique of the budget. Her closing comments addressed the immigration consultation process that is going to be presented to the Canadian public. I have similar concerns with immigration, so I am asking if she could elaborate a little more on the consultation process.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not in agreement with the hon. member on a number of issues. In particular, I do not support the budget. I think it is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I would like to ask the member specifically about his comments on the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We all know that our seniors have worked hard to make Canada a wonderful country in which to live. They have worked hard and they need to be respected and honoured. They deserve dignity. The seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement are on a fixed income.

We have been told by the hon. member and by the government that the government will be providing in the budget $2.7 billion. It sounds like a lot and it sounds like good news until we do the math. It works out to be $36 a month for a senior and with the clawbacks, it amounts to only $18 a month.

Can the member in all good conscience say that $18 a month for seniors is going to meet their needs? They have increased costs for rent, for gasoline for driving their cars, for insurance, for medical costs and on and on it goes. To say that the government is going to take care of seniors, show them dignity and respect and then it gives them $18 a month, can the member in all good conscience say that provides for the needs of our seniors?

[The Budget, March 7th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the presentation by my hon. colleague across the floor. I do agree with one point and that is the responsibility of members of Parliament and all politicians to keep their promises.

I want to ask a question regarding our seniors and the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. The member made a passing comment indicating that seniors deserve our respect, that they have earned it, and we all acknowledge that.

I was excited to see that increase until I did the math. I want to ask the member about it. If we do the math, we see that $18 is going to end up in our seniors' pockets. Can the member in all good conscience say that will meet their needs? These people have given their lives to our country. We need to honour them.

I think most of us here have parents in that age group. We need to honour and respect them. As for making an announcement that an increase will be provided and then making it an increase of just $18, is this the way to respect our seniors? We need to provide an increase. This $18 increase will not cover their increased costs for rent, hydro, gasoline or their medical costs. Can the member in all good conscience say that giving them this $18 will solve their problems? Can he say that this is the way to respect our seniors?

[Petitions, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions dealing with autism, asking Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to recognize autism for a required treatment and also for the creation of academic chairs at a university in each province to teach autism treatment.

[Petitions, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions in the House. The first petition asks Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.