CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 139 Ï NUMBER 027 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1567 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, March 23, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. CRIMINAL CODE Mr. Svend Robinson (BurnabyDouglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Prayers I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of British Columbia and Alberta. The petitioners point out that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people are common targets of hate crimes across Canada and are currently excluded from federal hate ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS propaganda laws. Ï (1000) They also note that in some cases gay bashers rely upon the [English] discredited homosexual panic defence, claiming they were justified in committing murder because the victim came on to them, and that ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS federal justice ministers since 1999 have promised to make the Hon. Roger Gallaway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader changes needed to the Criminal Code to protect gay and lesbian of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people under hate propaganda laws. I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government. The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend hate propaganda provisions in the Criminal Code to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and *** transgendered people, and to reform provocation law so that gay Ï (1005) bashers can no longer rely upon the so-called homosexual panic defence. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE MARRIAGE PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS Mr. Reed Elley (NanaimoCowichan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the a pleasure to present two petitions to the House today with some 800 honour to present the 11th report of the Standing Committee on names of people right across this country who urge the government Procedure and House Affairs regarding the provisional standing not to change the traditional definition of marriage as the union of orders governing private members' business, and I should like to one man and one women to the exclusion of all others. move concurrence at this time. (Motion agreed to) It is my pleasure to present this on behalf of these Canadians who are asking the government to keep the traditional values in the *** country. PETITIONS Ï (1010) MARRIAGE LIBRARY BOOK RATE Mr. Janko PeriÇ (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Mr. James Lunney (NanaimoAlberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present to the House a have two petitions to present today that are very important to my petition dealing with marriage that is signed by more than 700 riding. Canadians. The first one involves increases to the library book rate. There are The petitioners wish to underscore that this House voted to some 1,900 signatures of people from communities on Vancouver preserve the traditional definition of marriage in 1999. Despite this, a Island who will be greatly affected if the changes to the library book recent court ruling bypassed Parliament and its elected members on rate follow through. this issue. They are calling upon the government to recognize that the more Therefore the petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of than 400,000 people who live on the west coast of Vancouver Island Canada renew debate on the definition of marriage and reaffirm, as it depend upon the assistance of the Department of Canadian Heritage did in 1999, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to and Canada Post to deliver library books between the facilities there the exclusion of all others. so people can access these materials. 1568 COMMONS DEBATES March 23, 2004 Government Orders This is very important to people in my riding. They are really GOVERNMENT ORDERS hoping this can be renegotiated so that materials can be made available to help these communities. [Translation] NATURAL HEALTH PRODUCTS CUSTOMS TARIFF The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-21, an act to Mr. James Lunney (NanaimoAlberni, CPC): Mr. Speaker, amend the Customs Tariff, as reported (without amendment) from the second petition involves my private member's bill, Bill C-420, the committee. involving natural health products. Hon. Denis Paradis (for the Minister of Finance) moved that The petition contains some 600 signatures, in addition to the more the bill be concurred in at report stage and read the second time. than 120,000 that have already been presented. The petitioners come The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, across the nation actually, motion? and many communities in my own riding. Some hon. members: Agreed. They are calling upon the government to make sure that natural [English] health products are made available and that they are properly classified as foods and not as drugs. These are low cost, non- The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. patentable items. People want access to the products that they have (Motion agreed to) relied upon. They do not want them regulated, as the government has proposed and has started to implement, as drugs, which makes them Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Deputy Leader of the Government in unavailable and restricted unnecessarily. the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you would find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to MARRIAGE third reading of the bill. Mr. John Cummins (DeltaSouth Richmond, CPC): Mr. The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition this morning where Some hon. members: Agreed. almost 400 petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that marriage remains a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others and [Translation] should not be modified by a legislative act or a court of law. Hon. Denis Paradis (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. AGRICULTURE He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at third Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to reading of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff. present yet another petition on behalf of beef, sheep, goat and bison farmers in my riding concerning the BSE crisis. This bill provides for the continuation of a longstanding policy of providing preferential tariff treatment to developing and least No doubt these petitioners, who are some of many, are delighted developed countries. by the news that there is relief now flowing to ruminant farmers of all types across the country, but they know that the problem is still I will begin my remarks today by providing the House with some the border, and that over 1,000 farm families in my region are background to this issue. I will then discuss the bill and why it directly affected. deserves to be passed without delay. In the mid-1960s, there was widespread recognition that They point out that the industry and the herd concerned in Canada preferential tariff treatment for developing countries was a means and in the United States are essentially integrated and that Canadian of fostering the economic growth and well-being of poorer nations. beef is the safest in the world. They urge Parliament to do all it can to open the border. This a matter that should be taken up at the very Consequently, in 1968, it was agreed at the United Nations highest levels. conference on trade and development that a system of trade preferences should be implemented for developing countries. *** This decision was implemented by most industrialized countries, QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER including Canada, who agreed to provide more favourable treatment to products imported from developing countries than to similar Hon. Roger Gallaway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader products from industrialized countries. Countries also agreed that the of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, preferential tariff programs would be generalized, non-discrimina- I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. tory and non-reciprocal. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? It is with those principles in mind that most industrialized countries implemented preferential tariff programs benefiting the Some hon. members: Agreed. developing world. March 23, 2004 COMMONS DEBATES 1569 Government Orders Canadas program, the general preferential tariff, or GPT, was Ï (1020) implemented on July 1, 1974 and has been renewed twice, in 1984 and 1994. The more generous least developed country tariff, or [Translation] LDCT, was introduced in 1983. Both programs are set to expire on June 30, 2004. Hon. members should note that all other major industrialized countries provide preferential access for developing and least Ï (1015) developed countries and some, such as the United States, Japan and the European Union, have recently extended similar programs. [English] A final reason why extending these programs makes sense Under the GPT, the general preferential tariff, more than 180 concerns their impact here at home. While these programs were countries and territories are entitled to zero or low tariffs on a large mostly conceived as an economic assistance measure for developing majority of products that are covered under the customs tariff, with and least developed countries, they also benefit Canadians by the exception of some agricultural products, refined sugar, and most providing them with goods that are subject to lower rates of duty. textiles, apparel and footwear. As a result of lower tariffs on goods from the developing world, Like other industrialized countries, Canada introduced a program, Canadian consumers enjoy access to imported goods at competitive the LDCT, the least developed country tariff, which provides even prices.