Wayne Marston

[Omar Khadr, May 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Omar Khadr left Canada as a dutiful son following his father, as any boy of 13 or 14 years of age would do; misguided yes, but as with most children, loyal to his father and with no real comprehension of the potential consequences of his actions.

Later, at the age of 15, this boy was apprehended following a firefight with American special forces. Khadr had been shot twice in the back while he was turned away from the fight. In fact, one American officer had to step in to prevent another from executing him on the spot with his pistol.

Omar was taken to a field hospital where, while he was still in a great deal of pain recovering from his wounds, he was exposed to the American style of enhanced interrogation, and after months of recuperation was transported to Guantanamo. By all definitions and particularly the one contained in the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child combatant is anyone under the age of 18 years. In all senses of the word, Omar Khadr is a child combatant and our government must first accept this conclusion and then move to have him repatriated to Canada.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I raised earlier with another member in the House the fact that the changes to the bill regarding advertisements would move it to a regulatory level. The concern I have is that there would be the potential for an order in council which would allow for the PMO or the cabinet to decide what appropriate advertisements would be allowed. My concern, and perhaps the member shares this concern, is that would open the door to lobbyists one more time in a different way. That is a very unfortunate aspect. Perhaps when the bill makes it to committee, that would be one of the areas we could address.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc member's analysis of the bill. One of the concerns she spoke to is the fact that the regulations, which will allow for advertisements, also in my mind could open another door, and that is for lobbying of the cabinet. It is around the cabinet table where these decisions may well be made and that is a cause for grave concern about the kind of negative influence that could happen in regard to our government.

We all know what it has been like on the Hill for a number of years with regard to lobbying, and we all know how the government of the day has come in with the promise of accountability and being very straightforward. It strikes me as strange that we now have this bill which would allow those who are around the cabinet table to make such a serious decision. Would the member concur with that idea?

[Criminal Code, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say for the member across the way that I was 23 years old in 1970 and had yet to become a member of the New Democratic Party. In 1970 the New Democratic Party stood up against the War Measures Act because it was invasive of the rights of Quebeckers and those of the rest of Canadians. In my opinion, it was an affront to democracy as we know it.

I want to speak a little more about what the member was saying with regard to what I would refer to as natural law: the fact that people have a right to know what they are accused of and the right to know the evidence against them. We have seen the move by the government to prevent that. It was drawn to mind with what occurred yesterday with the so-called Toronto 18 when a number of them had the charges against them stayed. That is just an example of a system that took some time but did work.

However, in my opinion, these provisions are terrible and take away that sense of natural justice in Canada. Would you agree with that?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, April 16th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is very troubling. It appears to me that on the face of it what we have coming from the government today is more of a blame the victim mentality. People who are addicted to drugs are victims. They are not people who are out there socially playing games.

Also, the government seems to be ignoring evidence that can be found with a modest amount of research. For example, the head of the Ontario Criminal Lawyers' Association noted that justice department research shows that mandatory minimums do not deter offenders more than tailored proportional sentences and often result in a lower conviction rate because judges are reluctant to convict somebody for a minor transgression if they know the penalty is overly harsh.

Another part of just a minimal amount of research is that in 2000 California repealed mandatory minimums for minor drug offences. In 2004 Michigan repealed mandatory minimums for most drug offences, including repealing the harshest drug law in the U.S., life without parole, for dealing more than 650 grams of cocaine.

Does the member for London—Fanshawe have any explanation of why this government is headed in the wrong direction?

[Canadian Multiculturalism Act, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill by the member for Joliette which proposes in part that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec.

Before I speak directly to the bill, I want to point out to the members of the House that the NDP has already worked in the interest of Quebeckers in a number of areas. We did so when we showed support for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. We in the NDP have supported better protection for francophone workers. We have proposed bills that included asymmetry on child care and education.

In addition to our own initiatives, the NDP has supported bills by the Bloc in the past, but we believe Bill C-505 proposes to make changes that have broad implications for Quebec that Quebeckers themselves would question. On this one we think the Bloc's proposition goes too far and as a result, our members will not be supporting this bill.

Often in this House the Bloc members suggest that they alone can represent the interests and aspirations of Quebeckers, but we do not think that is true. For instance the NDP believes that in order to build on the distinctiveness of Quebec, we do not need to tear down the positive effects of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Canada was the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law. I would submit that the province of Quebec and many of its communities have benefited in a significant way from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. The act acknowledges multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

It was directed toward the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act sought to assist in the preservation of culture and language, which would include the French language and the French culture. The act also sought to reduce discrimination, to enhance cultural awareness and understanding, and to promote culturally sensitive institutional change at the federal level that was required at the time and continues to be.

I believe that the very nature of the act works in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians. The act states that it will work to: encourage and assist the business community, labour organizations, voluntary and other private organizations, as well as public institutions, in ensuring full participation in Canadian society, including the social and economic aspects of individuals of all origins and their communities, and in promoting respect and appreciation for the multicultural reality of Canada; and provide support to individuals and groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada; and undertake such other projects or programs in respect of multiculturalism, not by law assigned to any other federal institution, as are designed to promote the multiculturalism policy of Canada.

As I alluded to earlier, many multicultural groups and municipalities in Quebec, including the city of Montreal, receive funding for certain cultural events and programs which is provided by Canadian heritage under its multiculturalism program.

By passing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Canada became the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law clearly reaffirming multiculturalism as a fundamental value of Canadian society.

Today if we ask Canadians to describe Canada, 85% describe Canada as being a multicultural society. For many Canadians, multiculturalism refers to the presence and persistence of diverse racial and ethnic minorities who define themselves as different and who wish to remain so, their own nation, so to speak.

Ideologically multiculturalism consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas and ideals pertaining to the celebration of Canada's cultural diversity.

Multiculturalism at the policy level is structured around the management of diversity through formal initiatives in the federal, provincial and municipal domains.

Finally, multiculturalism is the process by which racial and ethnic minorities compete to obtain support from central authorities for the achievement of certain goals and aspirations. Canada's cultural diversity is manifest at the level of ethnic and immigrant composition.

At this point, I would reiterate that the new multiculturalism policy, which came into effect in 1988, offered a clearer sense of purpose and direction. The act acknowledged multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

In seeking a balance between cultural distinctiveness and equality, the act specified the right of all to identify with the cultural heritage of their choice, yet retain full and equitable participation in all aspects of Canadian society.

In effect, the act sought to preserve, enhance and incorporate cultural differences into the functioning of Canadian society, while ensuring equal access and full participation for all Canadians in the social, political and economic spheres.

A crucially important focus of the act was on the eradication of racism and removal of discriminatory barriers as being incompatible with Canada's commitment to human rights. I would suggest that multiculturalism serves as a positive instrument for change.

I understand that some Quebeckers have expressed unease about the federal multiculturalism policy since its inception, but I would say that the efforts of Quebec to protect and promote its language and culture are not contradictory with multiculturalism.

We in the NDP do not see the relationship between Quebec and Canada being win-lose situations all the time like the Bloc seems to. We like to think in terms of creating win-win situations. We salute Quebec's effort in many regards, but that does not mean we have to throw out the law on multiculturalism.

It is important for those involved in this debate, no matter which side they come from, to realize that there is still a special contract between the two founding nations of Canada. That contract is intact but challenged from time to time in this rapidly changing world.

Some critics hold the opinion that the multiculturalism policy has promoted too much diversity in recent years because it emphasizes the differences of Canadians rather than the values of Quebeckers and Canadians. On the other hand, defenders of Canada's multiculturalism argue that it encourages integration by telling immigrants they do not have to choose between preserving their cultural heritage and participating in Canadian society. Rather, they can do both. Also, many have come to the conclusion that ultimately our multiculturalism policy has actually helped integration.

There is so much more that can be said in defence of the value of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, but I am sure other points will arise in the course of this debate.

I will close by saying that when it comes to preserving their language and culture, the NDP supports the aspirations of Quebeckers. We in the NDP view the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as an important tool that is not in contradiction with those aspirations.

[Citizenship and Immigration, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, decades of demands by new Canadians have been ignored. Canada invites foreign doctors, nurses and teachers to come to Canada because of their skills. When new Canadians get here, they cannot use their education to benefit Canada or their families. The result is that Canada has some of the best educated taxi drivers in the world. Adding insult to injury, the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, want the power to prevent immigration applications.

Why are the Conservatives doing irreversible damage to the promise made to immigrants that they can reunite their families in Canada?

[Labour Volunteer Activists Awards, April 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to send my congratulations to the Hamilton and District Labour Council for hosting the upcoming third annual Labour Volunteer Activists Awards. On April 19, the labour council will formally honour the contributions that union members make daily to the well-being of our city of Hamilton.

Members of unions not only work for their local union on a volunteer basis, but often contribute many volunteer hours across the spectrum of services and agencies, such as the United Way, retiree clubs, senior centres and the list goes on.

Labour activist volunteers make a huge difference in our community. They are involved with many issues and initiatives, the environment, health and safety related activities, cultural events, human rights and peace initiatives, women's issues and other social service based events. Union members commit their time, as all volunteers do, for the satisfaction of improving our community.

I commend the officers and delegates of the Hamilton and District Labour Council for giving recognition to their members who are so deserving of our respect and appreciation.

[Doping in Sport, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a moment about the fact that the member's bill is very important in this age of sports drugging and that Canada has played a leading role for a number of years in putting the UNESCO convention together and supporting the countries of the world taking a stand against doping.

The convention against doping in sport promotes the prevention and ultimate elimination of doping in sport. The aim of UNESCO's anti-doping program is to ensure that all athletes enjoy the right to compete in a clean, honest and equitable environment. The convention also aims to harmonize anti-doping efforts worldwide and acknowledges the mandate of the World Anti-Doping Agency because doping jeopardizes the moral and ethical basis of sport and the health of those involved.

In today's highly competitive sports environment, athletes and athlete support personnel are under increasing pressure to do whatever it takes to win. As a result, the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is becoming more pervasive and insidious. Under the convention, governments formally agreed to take action collectively and individually to eliminate doping in sport.

Do the members present in the House today remember when Ben Johnson ran such a magnificent race and how proud we all were, only to see him lose the recognition of his feat after testing positive for a banned substance? Today in professional sport the use of steroids is seen by many as normal. It is almost an everyday occurrence.

UNESCO, as the sole United Nations agency with a sports mandate, is implementing a three-pronged strategy to tackle the doping problem.

First, with international cooperation, UNESCO developed the International Convention against Doping in Sport, which entered into force on February 1, 2007, so all countries around the world could apply the force of international law against doping.

Second, with education to successfully eliminate doping in sports, we must focus on the next generation of athletes. UNESCO is developing anti-doping education and prevention programs aimed at fostering the fundamental values that underpin sport and by informing young people of the moral, legal and health consequences of doping.

Third, with capacity building, UNESCO assists governments in the development of a national anti-doping programs and provides policy advice to ensure compliance with the convention. UNESCO also created the fund for the elimination of doping in sport that was established as part of the convention against doping in sport. The fund operates with contributions from member states, private and public bodies, as well as individuals.

Canada has played a leading role in the development of the convention at UNESCO to ensure progress and consensus on international anti-doping. In 2005 the convention was unanimously adopted at the 33rd UNESCO General Conference in Paris, France. Canada became the second country to ratify the convention on November 29, 2005. On December 11, 2006, the convention reached the threshold of the 30 required ratifications, paving the way for its entry into force.

Canada is respected worldwide for its domestic anti-doping programs and policies, which are administered by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Canada has demonstrated its commitment to protecting the integrity and spirit of sport by promoting a doping-free, fair and ethical environment for athletes.

The Government of Canada, and this may surprise some, should be commended for announcing that it will continue to hose the World Anti-Doping Agency. I say it should be surprising because I am not often one to give credit to the government. The World Anti-Doping Agency's headquarters is in Montreal and Canada reaffirmed its commitment to fight against doping in sport by hosting it for an additional 10 years.

Today, although Canada remains a leader in the worldwide fight against doping in sport, sports bodies must also do everything possible to ensure they award their world game championships only to countries wherein their governments have ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport.

To date, only 70 governments out of 205 member nations of the IOC have ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sports, which is the cornerstone of the IOC's fight against drugs. Clearly these countries must do better or they could potentially find themselves barred from competing in the 2010 Winter Olympics or the 2012 Summer Olympics if they have not ratified the convention.

I want to move away for a moment from the sometimes dry facts about doping in sport to talk just for a moment about what it means to young people who are beginning their careers in sport.

When athletes are young and just beginning to take part in sport, they are full of exuberance and enthusiasm. That comes from succeeding and achieving their goals, goals that they have set with their coaches, for which they have worked weeks and months training, and finally find themselves on the day of a competition.

Over time they have developed and have perhaps started on a winning track. They ultimately come up against those other athletes, athletes whose performance seems just too good to be true, athletes who got their level in sport by not only working hard, but with a little something extra. The day when the straight competitor is defeated by a person who is on enhancing drugs, must be a very rude awakening for them. At some point they must ask themselves what it is all about.

I believe a majority of our Canadian athletes do not dope, but the pressure to compete is very intense. I believe it is up to Parliament and the whole of our society to say to them that we believe in them, that we will do all that we can to ensure their field of dreams is not sullied by cheating with enhancing drugs.

Our Canadian athletes deserve the chance to compete in what my generation called a fair and square environment.

I want to take a moment to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for this private member's motion, as it helps remind parliamentarians and the Canadian people of the importance of having clean athletes in clean sports. I will be recommending to the NDP caucus that we support the bill.

[Fitness Tax Credit, April 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government claims that it wants to help average Canadian families afford the registration and equipment fees for their children's fitness through their tax credits. The Conservative government also claims that it wants to promote a healthier, more active lifestyle to fight childhood obesity. However, is the finance minister not aware that municipal programs only last an average of six weeks and the cut-off for the tax credit is eight weeks?

How does the minister expect Canadians to benefit from this tax credit when it is designed so they do not even qualify?