Peter Julian

[Petitions, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present, on behalf of my constituents and Canadians, two petitions.

In the first petition, Canadians from a number of regions of Canada call upon the House to protect the rights of children with autism, who are among the most vulnerable members of our community.

They petition the government to amend the Canada Health Act to include the treatment of autism and ensure that the highly effective IBI and ABA method of treatment of autism is provided in Canada to support these children to live full and complete lives.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly in support of Bill C-38. It addresses the issue of equality of gay and lesbian Canadians in our country by entrenching the right to civil marriage.

The courts have consistently and repeatedly found that laws which excluded same sex marriage were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For this reason seven Canadian provinces and one Canadian territory have already legislated same sex marriages for gay and lesbian Canadians. The provinces of British Columbia, my native province; Saskatchewan; Manitoba; Ontario; Quebec; Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Yukon Territory have already addressed this issue through the courts. Now it is up to our country's highest political body, the House of Commons, to end discrimination in marriage against gay and lesbian Canadians.

There are those in the House who will not support this legislation. I was shocked to hear that the Leader of the Opposition will not only oppose the bill, but is also eager to repeal Bill C-38 should he form the next government. In this way he intends to perpetuate discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians.

By the same token, despite the refusal to accept equality by the Leader of the Opposition, I see a small glimmer of hope for that party, as a small number of moderates such as the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, the member for Calgary Centre-North and the member for Newmarket—Aurora have all indicated with great courage that they will stand up for equality of gay and lesbian Canadians. Those few Conservative members are showing great courage and deserve our recognition.

I also want to recognize the many members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois who are supporting this important step for equality.

The Leader of the Opposition will end the protection and equality afforded by this bill if he comes to power. Just how will he do that? How will he make invalid that fundamental right? What other fundamental rights will he withdraw from Canadians? He speaks of separate but equal being the tenet of his party in this case.

I would like to talk about the proposal of separate but equal that those members of the House are talking about in an effort to shield the fundamental discriminatory stand that they are taking.

We have not heard much about this doctrine since the days of the great civil rights struggles for the African-American community in the United States. The appalling segregation of the Black community in the southern United States was based on that same doctrine which somehow purports that separate treatment allows for a measure of equality.

I would like to paraphrase Martin Luther King when he talked to an end of the doctrine of separate but equal. He said that now was the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of separation to the sunlit path of justice.

I believe in uncompromised equality. It is important to remember that the courts in the United States progressively demolished this fundamentally flawed doctrine of separate but equal in the case of segregation.

Now similar court decisions in Canada have brought us to the debate that we are having today, to ratify an end to discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians in marriage. Separate but equal is not going to address this fundamental notion of equality.

We in the New Democratic Party have taken a clear stand to end discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians. It is a stand based on our fundamental belief that discrimination is not to be tolerated. The NDP will not perpetuate or condone discrimination. That has been the courageous history of our party.

As our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, said so eloquently earlier today, the New Democratic Party has stood up in the past for equality for Canadians of Chinese origin, first nations peoples, women, and all Canadians. We have stood up for equality in all those areas and we have also been committed throughout the history of our existence to preserving religious freedoms.

I would like to say a few words on the balance that this bill affords to religious freedoms. It is important I believe that religious freedoms be protected while we end discrimination against gay and lesbian Canadians in civil marriage legislation. We believe that this bill achieves that protection.

When Bill C-38 becomes law, will the status of marriage be any less? Will people in heterosexual marriages lose any of the financial, legal or social benefits of marriage? Will people who are already married feel less married? Will various religious institutions be forced to perform same sex marriages? The answer to all of these questions is unequivocally no.

I have a very clear answer for hon. members who are opposed to the bill and who fear that the bill, although it is not clear how, would somehow hurt Canadian families.

We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by fighting for the dignity and respect of all Canadians. We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by creating opportunities and good jobs. We will help Canadian families to preserve and protect our environment.

We will help Canadian families, not by opposing Bill C-38 but by improving public health care, by making life more affordable and secure for Canadian families, by ensuring access to affordable education, and by restoring integrity and accountability in government that has been sorely impacted by the ongoing revelations of gross financial misconduct by the Liberal government, as has been revealed by the Gomery commission.

We will help Canadian families most of all by taking firm and decisive action to fight the growing child poverty, the growing insecurity and the growing homelessness that is a national disgrace for all Canadians. Homelessness and child poverty is coming at a time of record corporate profits, record bank profits and record corporate tax gifts for the wealthy, as we saw in the budget.

We will help Canadian families and families the world over by strengthening Canada's independent voice for peace, for human rights and for fair trade on the world stage.

Those are the issues that matter most to Canadian families and those are the issues on which we will continue to fight in the House of Commons.

During last year's election campaign I knocked on over 6,000 doors in Burnaby and New Westminster and spoke to Canadians throughout my community. On doorsteps, in public meetings, in media interviews, any time the issue came up, I pledged to support marriage legislation that would bring equality to gay and lesbian Canadians. I will keep my commitment to my constituents and to all Canadians.

For all those reasons I will be supporting the bill and the many gay and lesbian Canadians who are striving for equality and an end to discrimination.

[Air-India, March 22nd, 2005]

That is another weak answer, Mr. Speaker, and another betrayal of the victims' families.

It is unbelievable that the government would show no respect to the 329 families and refuse to ensure that this never happens again. We know what the families are calling for. They have been calling for a public inquiry for 20 years. As a spokesperson for the families said, “The dead deserve more”. These families deserve more.

Will the Prime Minister apologize to the 329 families of victims of the Air-India disaster for the cavalier comments of the Deputy Prime Minister? Will he commit to a public inquiry today?

[Air-India, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the former senior minister from British Columbia has publicly stated that slamming the door on a public inquiry to find out what happened in the Air-India bombing would be a betrayal of the Liberal Party's commitments to Canadians.

The current Minister of Health has publicly stated that CSIS treated the Air-India crisis in a casual manner because it involved people from the South Asian community. Former MP and Solicitor General critic, John Nunziata, has said that there was a massive cover-up. All Liberals.

What is the government afraid of? A public inquiry is needed. Will the Prime Minister commit today to a public inquiry if there is no appeal?

[TELUS Communications, March 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, workers at TELUS Communications have been without a contract for four years. These are TWU members who are supporting families in communities like Burnaby and Vancouver, B.C.

The five B.C. NDP MPs are standing up together for these workers because the treatment that they have received from their employer is shameful. They have been without a raise for five years and are being held hostage by unfair labour practices. These workers have the right to be treated fairly. They have the right to a respectful contract that maintains pensions, stops contracting out and ensures that grievance procedures are upheld.

While the Canada Industrial Relations Board has clearly stated that TELUS was guilty of unfair labour practices and in violation of federal law, the board has backtracked on its order that TELUS undergo binding arbitration.

On behalf of these workers and their families, we are calling on the federal government to immediately order TELUS into binding arbitration and to stop this injustice.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the reason for this continuing problem is very clear. We have a government that dithers and then dithers, and dithers some more. We are talking about missile defence where the NDP very clearly indicated early on with the mass of Canadian public opinion that it was extremely important that it be rejected. It took months and months and a Liberal convention before the government finally saw the light rather than be fried by its own members at the Liberal convention and decided to change its position.

On every one of these issues, there is constant and continued dithering. Rather than negotiating strongly and firmly the way Canadians appreciate, we have not seen this from the government and that is why we are in the state that we are in.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

What we support, Mr. Speaker, is real action. We support actual concrete steps that will make a difference in the farming communities across the country that have been horribly impacted by the lack of action of the government. We have always stood for that. We will continue to stand for that and we will continue to fight in this corner of the House for real concrete measures that make a difference.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that the government has done very little in facing this incredible crisis. It is not just members of the NDP who say this. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said that all the government is offering is empty words and no action. Cattle communities based right across the country are saying that the government has empty words and no action. Three-quarters of the members of the House in this minority Parliament are saying the same thing.

The Liberals say that somehow, in the midst of these empty words and complete lack of action, something good is happening. They can throw out all the statistics they want but we have seen with the budget that they like to do flim-flam, play around with figures, maybe do something this year and certainly they will do something five years from now, but we know that Liberal promises are not worth the paper or the napkin they are printed on.

[Canadian Livestock Industry, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay for his generosity in splitting his time with me.

It is very obvious that we are in crisis. It is very obvious, in light of the events of last week relating to BSE and the blocking of exports at the U.S. border, that this key industry is continuing to experience massive financial and job losses. We are dealing with a $2 billion reduction in GDP. We are dealing with a $5.7 billion reduction in overall production, that is, $1 billion in lost earnings and some 75,000 lost jobs.

As the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay said earlier, this government has taken no action. As the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said so well, there are only hollow words, but no actions. We know very well this has been pretty much the way this government operates. We saw it with the Kyoto plan. Is there a plan? No, there is no plan in that sector. Is there a plan to reduce the growing poverty in Canada? No, there is no plan. We have seen it in the textile industry. Is there a plan to deal with the crisis hitting the textile industry, which we have already talked about in this House? No, there is no plan.

Similarly, in the BSE case, we see that this government has no plan and takes no action. It does not respond in any way. Moreover, we know very well that the problems we are now having in this industry at the American border are experienced by other industries, such as softwood lumber. That industry is very important to my province, British Columbia, and the penalties incurred to date amount to $4 billion.

And in the face of all this, we see the government's lack of action. We see the lack of initiatives when it comes to negotiating firmly with the Americans or when it must try to ease the suffering of farmers all across the country. There is no plan for dealing with these job losses. There are no actions. When this government does, occasionally, take action, it is too little and too late.

What are we left with? We saw market prices plummet $130 an animal in the hours following the U.S. district court's ruling in Montana. This crash in prices came just as producers were starting to turn a profit on some of their animals for the first time since May 2003.

We see the crisis. We see the incredible impact on our farming communities across the country. Like the member for Timmins--James Bay said, we do not see any action in the budget to address these fundamental concerns. Even if the budget passes tomorrow night because of support from the Conservative Party, the reality is that for the farming and cattle communities across the country there is no action from the government and there should be.

Now that we are conducting some testing, are the Americans being truthful about the extent of mad cow disease on their own soil? I will cite as a reference an article from the Ottawa Citizen written just this week about Lester Friedlander, a former veterinarian with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a well-known whistleblower. Mr. Friedlander says, flat out, that “mad cow is probably prevalent in the U.S., but has so far been kept out of the public eye. There's no doubt in my mind”.

In the early 1990s, he said that he was speaking to the USDA's chief pathologist about mad cow when the following exchange took place:

“Lester, if you ever find mad cow disease, promise me one thing?” he was asked. “What's that?” he responded. “Don't tell anybody.”

Mr. Friedlander said that he would take a lie detector test to back up his story. Once he heard that, he said, “I knew this whole thing was a joke”.

Mr. Friedlander alleges the Americans have not pursued a handful of false positive tests with enough rigour and said:

“The U.S. isn't any better than Canada. Except Canada was a little more truthful and came out and dealt with the problem. That's what I'm trying to tell the USDA,” he argues.

What we have here is not an issue that requires more than government action and stepping forward. It is an issue that requires strong but firm negotiations with the United States. We know from witness accounts, such as the one I just mentioned, that there are Americans who believe there is equal prevalence of BSE on the United States side.

We also know, and this is outrageous, that members of R-CALF, the U.S. ranchers group that sued on safety grounds to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle, have been buying up cheap cows in Canada after that devastating ban. This is something that group's president actually acknowledged on March 7, 2005 when he said:

“I don't see anything ironic about it,” Leo McDonnell said from Columbus, Montana. “I didn't see it as a big deal”

Three of those U.S. ranchers have been significant contributors to R-CALF's litigation fund,” McDonnell said, “an endeavour focused squarely on keeping the border shut.

Rick Paskal, the president of the Canadian Cattlemen For Fair trade has said that R-CALF was “absolutely not concerned about food safety”.

“There's nothing unique about what we're doing,” said McDonnell, who noted that members of pro-trade U.S. ranching groups have also bought Canadian cattle.

The Americans have benefited from rock bottom cattle prices in Canada and Mr. Paskal is quoted as saying that as many as 30,000 head of cattle had been purchased by at least a dozen R-CALF members.

What we see here is not a safety issue. What we see here is an issue of trade and another example of how ineffective the government's approach to opening up the borders has been, just as we saw with softwood lumber.

Being a member from British Columbia, a province that has lost 20,000 jobs to softwood lumber because of the government's lack of action and lack of ability to negotiate on the softwood lumber, we are seeing the same type of dithering on top of dithering when it comes to BSE.

In both of those cases the government has been completely ineffective. In both of those cases we have seen the loss of tens of thousands of Canadian jobs in various parts of the country. In both of those cases we have seen devastation in communities across the country. In certain areas, in the epicentres of the crises, people are going under and families are losing their homes. In spite of all this, the government persists in taking weak-kneed actions.

What should it be doing? I will answer that. The member for Timmins—James Bay, who is also our agriculture critic, has said very clearly what needs to happen. He has called for 100% testing of cattle that is destined for slaughter. He has talked about a full feedback. Those are the types of things we need to do to respond to the international marketplace and make absolutely sure that we are establishing confidence in our cattle industry. Although we know that this is a question of trade and a question of negotiating firmly and strongly with our American neighbours, we also know that we have to take steps domestically.

We have also called for a very strong message to be sent to the Bush administration. When we see with chapter 19, with the BSE and with softwood lumber the continued trade tribunal rulings that have been ignored by the American government, we know we need to take a strong and firm position.

The NDP caucus continues to push for an effective plan to be put in place by the government to help farming communities, to help the cattle industry, to help the 75,000 workers who have lost their jobs and to help the tens of thousands of softwood workers who have lost their jobs. We will continue to speak out on this issue and we will continue to fight for them.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, February 25th, 2005]

It is certainly a betrayal of what is needed in Canada and it is a betrayal of election promises that were made by the Liberal government and the Conservative Party in the last election.

I ask the member for Halifax what she believes is behind this total betrayal of students and young people across the country.