36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 117
CONTENTS
Monday, June 8, 1998
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMISSIONER FOR THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1140
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1150
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting suspended
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Sitting Resumed
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1200
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Judicial Rulings
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1220
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1225
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1230
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1235
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1250
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1305
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1320
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1325
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1330
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1335
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1350
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1355
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AYDEN BYLE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1400
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VAL D'OR KIWANIS CLUB
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MUNICIPALITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AJAX HOME WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANPASS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Pillitteri |
1405
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLIVAR ASSELIN
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUTO PACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM PARTY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1410
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YWCA
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1415
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1420
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1430
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1435
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1440
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1445
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1450
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000 COMPUTERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
1455
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Maria Minna |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1500
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1505
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (REMEDIAL AND DISCIPLINARY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-44. Introduction and first reading.
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-419. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Unity
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1510
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Emergency Personnel
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Professional Sports
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Assisted Suicide
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Justice
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1515
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pesticides
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Judicial Rulings
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1530
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1535
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1610
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Graham |
1615
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1620
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1625
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Judicial Rulings
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1640
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1645
1650
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Judicial Rulings
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1720
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1735
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1750
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1805
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1820
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1825
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Judicial Rulings
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-30. Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Deputy Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions No. 1
|
1835
1840
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1845
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1900
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1905
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-9. Report stage
|
1910
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1915
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1920
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
1925
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1930
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1935
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1940
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-3. Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1945
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1950
1955
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
2000
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
2005
2010
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ivan Grose |
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
2015
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
2020
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2025
2030
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Second reading and concurrence in Senate
amendments
|
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
2035
2040
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2045
2050
2055
2100
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
2105
2110
2115
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2120
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
2125
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
2130
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
2135
2140
2145
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2150
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
2155
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
2200
2205
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
2210
2215
![V](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
2220
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 117
![](/web/20061116180435im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 8, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
COMMISSIONER FOR THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should create
the position of commissioner for the rights of victims of crime,
with a role similar to that of the correctional investigator.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this
motion seconded by the member for Surrey North. I appreciate his
seconding this motion.
Motion No. 386 calls on the federal government to establish a
commissioner for the rights of victims of crime. The motion
further specifies that the role of such office would be similar
to that of the correctional investigator. I introduced this
motion last month to highlight the strong need of victims of
crime to have a voice, a voice within our criminal justice
system.
Since the election last June it has become increasingly clear
that victims in the justice system are in need of such an office.
As the justice critic for the Progressive Conservative Party I
have had the opportunity to speak with many victims of crime, and
those courageous individuals are not only against crime itself
but want to further involve themselves in the cause of victims
generally. These victims are also spouses, children, parents and
siblings, those who have lost loved ones as a result of criminal
activity.
Unfortunately victims often have no one to turn to at the
federal level for assistance when their concerns have not been
properly addressed by those who are charged with the task of
administering justice. I mention the federal level because all
provinces and territories have legislation in place for victims
of crime, unlike the federal government which appears reluctant
to adopt a victims bill of rights.
In my home province of Nova Scotia we have a victims services
division within our department of justice. In Quebec, le Bureau
d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, BAVAC, provides
information and assistance to victims of crime. Progressive
Conservative governments in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have
also increased the level of services and information available to
victims and their families.
The problem has less to do with the offices and more to do with
the lack of information and government programs that provide for
victims. Specifically it has more to do with the lack of an
independent advocate for victims when the justice system breaks
down.
Who is there to provide answers for these individuals, for their
loved ones, those who have died or who have been seriously
injured as a result of crime? When this happens there needs to
be a federal agency that can address these problems. Let us ask
someone like Carolyn Solomon of Garson, Ontario. In 1997 Ms.
Solomon lost her son Kevin who was murdered by Michael Hector.
Hector was a federal parolee who was not properly supervised.
Moreover, Hector's parole supervisor was not provided with enough
information about this individual.
Hector breached his conditions of parole and should not have
been permitted to walk the streets. Consequently he was free to
kill. Three young individuals lost their lives as a result,
including Carolyn Solomon's son Kevin.
Mrs. Solomon wanted to know why Michael Hector was permitted to
breach these conditions of his parole without accountability. She
wanted to know why Correctional Service Canada did not provide
Michael Hector's full criminal and psychological records to his
parole supervisor. She wanted to know why Hector's parole
supervisor took everything Hector told him at face value, a sense
of self-reporting. There was no in-depth investigation on these
bits of information provided by the parolee.
1110
To their credit, Correctional Service Canada and the National
Parole Board have a mechanism in place to promptly undertake a
review when cases are botched the way they were with Michael
Hector. Mrs. Solomon was a victim of Michael Hector's crime
which resulted from mistakes made by Correctional Service Canada
and the National Parole Board and yet they are in essence charged
with investigating themselves in the wake of this tragedy.
Mrs. Solomon certainly asked for information in the months that
followed her son's death and certainly asked to see the final
report of the CSC and the National Parole Board investigation.
However, what was the response of the agencies to her inquiries?
Dead silence or perhaps mild indifference. Only when Mrs.
Solomon hired a lawyer and raised the spectre of legal action did
the CSC and the National Parole Board finally provide her with a
copy of the board of investigation report into the death of her
son. Only when Mrs. Solomon spent over a year facing a wall of
apathy within the federal agencies which are paid for in part by
her taxes did she receive a meaningful response.
A few months ago Mrs. Solomon sat in my office in Ottawa. She
looked me straight in the eye and said: “I feel more anger
toward our justice system than I do for Michael Hector”. This
is a very telling statement given the fact that Michael Hector
killed her son. It is an extremely sad commentary on the current
state of our justice system when a mother whose son was murdered
feels this way about our justice system.
Mrs. Solomon is not alone. Helen Leadley of Calgary, Alberta
lost her 23-year old daughter in 1983 to Robert Paul Thompson
while he was out on a day pass. Two weeks ago Thompson was
granted a 19 hour escorted temporary absence, an ETA, to attend a
religious ceremony. Who was Thompson's escort? Was it a
security guard? No, it was not a guard. Thompson's escort was
the Springhill inmate chaplain because, as it was related to Mrs.
Leadley, it was part of Thompson's personal development program.
Although a personal development program for a convicted killer
may be laudable, releasing him into the general public without
proper supervision is a slap in the face for victims
and family members like Mrs. Leadley.
What does Mrs. Leadley have to do? Where does she turn when
this happens? Does the federal government provide her with an
opportunity to contact an independent advocate or an ombudsman to
investigate these questionable decisions made by Correctional
Service Canada or other related agencies? No. Sadly there is not
such an office. Another victim is feeling revictimized.
Someone has ended the life of a loved one and then the criminal
justice system appears to focus solely on the needs of the
criminal to the detriment to the needs of the victim at times.
The lack of concern within the justice system for the rights of
victims only underlines the fact that there is increasingly low
confidence in our justice system, low confidence by the victims
and by the general public. The problem of low confidence within
our justice system has been highlighted. We see it time and time
again in terms of the expression of the frustration on the part
of victims and people at large. Our justice system does not
exactly inspire public confidence, and that needs to change.
That is not to say the public must always agree with the
decisions made by police, the judiciary, crown prosecutors, the
parole board or even the prison system, but Canadians must be
assured that victims have the same access as criminals to
ensuring their rights are respected by our justice system.
Unfortunately most Canadians feel little assurance in the
ability of our justice system to include the views of the victims
of crime in the decision making process.
Last week I hosted a town hall meeting in my riding in Nova
Scotia and the topic was victims rights. There were not too many
people present at the meeting who expressed a great deal of faith
in our justice system. There were a great deal more who
expressed a feeling of frustration about our political system and
its ability to make significant change.
Victims like Carolyn Solomon should not have to spend their own
dollars hiring lawyers to get answers within our justice system.
They should have a commissioner for the rights of victims of
crime, an independent ombudsman, their own voice at the federal
level, involved in the administration of our country's justice
system. This commissioner would be modelled after the office of
the correctional investigator established in 1973 as part II of
the Inquiries Act.
Since 1992 the office of the correctional investigator has
fallen under part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. The correctional investigator acts as an ombudsman
independent of Correctional Service Canada for offenders serving
prison sentences within our federal penitentiaries. The
correctional investigator may investigate on his own initiative,
on request from the solicitor general, on a complaint or on
behalf of an inmate.
1115
The office also reviews all CSC reports of investigations into
death or serious injury within our federal inmate system. Each
year the correctional investigator submits an annual report
regarding problems investigated and actions taken to the
Department of the Solicitor General and the solicitor general is
in turn required to table the report in parliament.
In the past these reports have outlined general issues of
concern to federal inmates such as overcrowding, double bunking
and the use of force by guards. I can only use those as examples
because it would appear to me to be a very positive step the
government would take to establish a victims rights commissioner
who would have the ability to investigate similar problems on
behalf of victims and similarly table a report in the House.
Would it not be a more positive climate for parliament to have
an independent annual report coming forward that outlines the
problems facing victims within our federal system and allowing us
in the House to take a look at those problems with a mind to
improving them?
A commissioner for the rights of victims would be more than just
a sympathetic ear or a clearing house for government information.
The commissioner would be an ombudsman, an advocate and an
independent voice within the criminal justice system, a system
that all believe does not properly reflect victims rights.
The Minister of Justice told the media earlier this year of her
intention to create a national victims rights office.
Unfortunately the victims of crime with whom I have spoken and
met recently are worried that this initiative would be little
more than a duplication of the information services provided for
victims already within the provincial and territorial
governments. The minister and the government could show good
faith in creating a meaningful government mechanism to support
victims rights by supporting in principle Motion No. 386.
For those who would express reservations in supporting the
motion on the basis that it would infringe on provincial or
territorial jurisdiction, I would ask that they simply consider
what provincial organization is able to properly hold federal
agencies accountable for their decisions within the federal
component of the criminal justice system.
Beyond the office of a correctional investigator let us remember
the many independent federal organizations that operate to
scrutinize decisions made by important national institutions.
The RCMP is subjected to independent review from both the RCMP
public complaints commission and the RCMP external review
committee. CSIS is subject to the Security Intelligence Review
Committee and a CSIS inspector general.
When there is a transportation related accident the
transportation safety board is mandated to investigate. Air
Canada does not investigate its own plane crashes without
examination by a board. VIA Rail similarly is not left to its
own devices to review passenger train accidents. The operation
of the Government of Canada as a whole is subjected to the
scrutiny of offices such as the auditor general, the information
commissioner, the privacy commission and the official languages
commissioner.
A society and a government that are prepared to provide for
independent scrutiny for many of these policy objectives should
similarly be prepared to provide an independent advocate on
behalf of victims of crime.
Victims are not seeking the right to be judge and jury, but they
are simply demanding they be listened to and respected by a
system that often centres too much on the relationship between
the state and the community. Victims need to be added to the
criminal justice equation.
As an illustration previously provided, in the case of Carolyn
Solomon, her son and others the sentence of the offender is often
less important to victims than the experience of the judicial
process itself. Victims are demanding a voice and Motion No. 386
would help provide them with that voice.
I urge hon. colleagues from all sides of the House to put aside
partisanship that often enters into the question of law and order
and let us make a lasting and positive contribution for those who
have been excluded from the justice system for far too long. Let
us give victims a stronger voice within our justice system.
During my time as an attorney in Nova Scotia I heard many people
state that the measure of a true democracy is demonstrated by the
treatment of its prisoners. Certainly the time has come for
Canada to show that we want an equally important measure of
democracy in how we treat our victims.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I consider it a privilege to
speak to an issue of top priority to the Minister of Justice and
the government, that is the role of victims within the justice
system. I am encouraged that so many members in this place agree
that much more needs to be done to improve the situation of the
victim.
1120
In addressing whether we should establish a federal commissioner
for the rights of victims of crime, which is proposed by the hon.
member's motion, we must consider a whole range of issues not
least of which is the interaction of provincial and federal
jurisdictions in this area.
In light of the commitment of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights to deal fully with the issue of the role of
victims in the justice system, I find it passing strange that we
are debating this issue in the House today. Next week we are
holding the victims forum in Ottawa to hear from those who have
firsthand knowledge of what needs to be done and what role the
federal government can play in ensuring these needs are met.
Much work has already been done in this field. I believe the
experience of those who have undertaken pioneering work will
benefit the members of the committee as they prepare their
recommendations.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough spoke to the
issue last week during debate on the Reform Party's allotted day
motion regarding the criminal justice system. As I recall, the
hon. member noted that pursuant to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act the office of the correctional
investigator had been established to ensure that incarcerated
offenders within the federal corrections system had a mechanism
to address their complaints and concerns. The hon. member is
suggesting that there should be a parallel office or a
commissioner—I also heard him use the term ombudsman—to look
out for the interests of victims of crime.
Hon. members are aware that the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights is currently examining the role of the victim in
the criminal justice system. This review is under way due in
part to a motion made by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford
in April 1996 calling on the government to ask the standing
committee to explore a federal bill of rights for victims. The
standing committee heard from several witnesses in April 1997 and
concluded that a more detailed examination of this and other
related issues was indeed necessary.
The standing committee will address a host of issues including
the need for additional services for victims, the information
needs of victims, how such services can be funded and whether
additional Criminal Code amendments are necessary.
The Minister of Justice has already discussed several options
with provincial attorneys general but has also noted that further
information would be gathered by the standing committee. That
consultation process would assist the minister in refining many
of the options under consideration.
It would be appropriate that this motion to establish a
commissioner be referred to the standing committee. The
committee has an opportunity to hear from the real experts
regarding what victims need and expect from the criminal justice
system and what is currently being provided.
The committee has already received information about the range
of services and legislation already in existence in the provinces
and territories. With this background and context the committee
is in the best position to assess the benefits and feasibility of
establishing the position of commissioner.
The hon. member's proposal is not novel. The Minister of
Justice has already indicated her interest in establishing a
federal office for victims of crime. The minister has discussed
the establishment of such an office with her provincial
colleagues who have indicated their support for a complementary
federal role and co-ordination mechanism to among other goals
bring about improvements to the criminal justice system to
benefit victims of crime and to ensure they receive the
information they need. This option of the establishment of an
office for victims may achieve many of the same objectives as the
hon. member suggests regarding a commissioner.
Hon. members should also be aware that the Minister of Justice
wrote to the chair of the standing committee expressing her
interest in the review of the role of the victim in the criminal
justice system and seeking its input on several specific options
including the establishment of an office. I will quote from that
letter:
In addition to Criminal Code amendments, I have been considering
several non-legislative options including the establishment of an
“Office” for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice.
I have discussed the establishment of such an Office with my
provincial and territorial colleagues and have received their
support for this initiative. An Office for Victims of Crime
would be mandated to, among other things, ensure the victim's
perspective is considered in the development of all criminal law
policy and legislation. The Office would co-ordinate all federal
victim initiatives and facilitate federal-provincial-territorial
initiatives. In general, it would be a centre of expertise
domestically and internationally and a point of contact for
information about the role of victims of crime in the criminal
justice system. The Standing Committee may wish to explore the
benefits of such an Office for Victims of Crime.
1125
The Minister of Justice has recognized that the standing
committee's review provides an opportunity to canvass a wide
range of views regarding a wide range of victims issues. I would
submit that consideration of the motion should also await that
review process or even become part of it.
The minister's letter to the standing committee also
acknowledged the work done by a joint
federal-provincial-territorial committee that includes all the
provincial and territorial directors of victims services. That
group has gathered information about existing programs, services
and legislation in Canada and meets regularly to address issues
of concern and to propose necessary solutions.
That type of federal-provincial-territorial initiative and
co-operation is essential when addressing the needs and concerns
of victims within the criminal justice system because governments
have to work together. This co-operation must be encouraged and
formalized. The office proposed by the Minister of Justice would
be a means to ensure ongoing federal-provincial-territorial
collaboration, consultation and co-operation.
In the discussions of the Minister of Justice to date with
victim advocates, service providers and many experts in their
field a common theme emerges. Crime victims and witnesses need
information and do not know where to turn for information when
they get caught up in the criminal justice system.
They do not want to be told that their problem is somebody
else's job or in some other jurisdiction. In addition, most
believe it is the government's responsibility to assist them.
There are already many valuable programs and services but there
continue to be some gaps in making Canadians aware of those
services.
Therefore there is a need to focus on how we as a government can
develop a centre point of contact for victims and a network of
information providers. The Minister of Justice has already
launched a process to work closely with the provinces on this
issue and does not intent to set up an expensive, cumbersome
bureaucracy.
With respect to the issue of victims rights I have some
reservations about the federal government role. We should not
suggest to Canadians that a special charter and special
legislation are needed depending on the situation they find
themselves in. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
provides us all with equal benefit and protection under the law.
Moreover, criminal law and criminal procedure are properly set
out in the Criminal Code.
Another concern relates to the jurisdictional responsibilities
of the provinces, territories and federal government. The
provinces and territories have enacted legislation to address a
variety of so-called victims rights relating to the fair
treatment of victims, the provision of information and services,
and related issues.
Federal legislation can address only matters of federal
jurisdiction. Another major consideration in developing rights
legislation is how breach or violation of these rights can be
effectively enforced. Most victims rights legislation provides
no remedy. Real improvements require the willing participation
of all players in the criminal justice system. Let us hear their
views on what an effective role for the federal government might
be.
Earlier I referred to the federal government's role in enacting
criminal law. I do not need to remind the House of many of the
Canadian Criminal Code amendments passed by the government which
respond directly to the concerns of crime victims.
For example, there is the gun control legislation, Bill C-68;
the crime prevention strategy; the national information system on
child sex offenders; sentencing legislation; amendments to the
Criminal Code to permit collection of bodily samples for DNA
analysis, Bill C-104; the restriction of the defence of extreme
intoxication; and Bill C-55 amendments regarding high risk
offenders.
I could go on and on with the examples. The Minister of Justice
also indicated that further Criminal Code amendments will be
proposed following receipt and review of the standing committee's
report to respond to recommendations made by victims advocates
and by the federal-provincial-territorial working group on
victims and crime.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in support of Motion No. 386 proposed by
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
While I am in support of the concept of creating a position of
commissioner for the rights of victims of crime with a role
similar to that of the correctional investigator, I have some
reservations and some concerns.
The official objective of the office of the correctional
investigator is to act as an ombudsman for the federal
corrections service.
1130
It is to ensure an independent review and investigation of
problems of federal offenders related to the decisions,
recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner of
corrections, his servants or agents, in relation to the
administration of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
In simple terms, his office is the complaint department for
federal inmates.
We may from time to time question the validity of some of these
complaints, but that is another issue.
As has been said by many, there seems to be a definite inequity
in our justice system when for years we have had an advocate for
offenders but not for victims of crime. This inequity only adds
to public scepticism that we appear to be far more interested in
the rights of criminals than we are in the rights of the law
abiding and the innocent.
Mr. Ron Stewart has occupied the correctional investigator
position for a number of years and Canadians have indeed been
fortunate to have his independent management. He has never been
hesitant to publicly criticize the government for its failures
and deficiencies. Obviously, he has not been a political
patronage appointment who merely goes through the motions on
behalf of the interests of government.
I am concerned that Canadians feel confident that any such
commissioner for the rights of victims of crime retain similar
independence. The position must go to an individual who will do
the job for Canadians and not merely for the government.
As I have said, Mr. Stewart has shown an independence. For
years now he has been boldly reporting correctional failures.
However, there is one glaring shortcoming and that has to do with
the power or, more precisely, the lack of power of his position.
Each year he reports many of the same faults and inadequacies
and each year the government fails to properly remedy the
problems. It will do us little good to have an independent
commissioner for the rights of victims of crime unless we also
have a mechanism in place to ensure that investigations and
reports are acted upon.
It does little good to continually have recommendations being
made without some legislative requirement to act upon those
recommendations and some form of accountability.
Assuming we provide the proposed commissioner for the rights of
victims of crime with the full independence to do a proper job
and assuming we appoint someone who will have the intestinal
fortitude to take on the government as necessary, we would then
have to consider the mandate of that position.
What responsibilities would be assigned? Would they include the
ability to investigate national parole board or correctional
service decisions whereby individuals are released from our
institutions only to violently reoffend within days?
There have been a number of recent incidents. The parole board
decided that armed robbery with a gun was not a violent offence
because no shots were fired. It granted parole and the offender
promptly went out and killed three people.
Another killer was paroled, but nobody bothered to tell the
woman he moved in with about his past, and he killed her.
A man is given statutory release, despite warnings that he is a
high risk to commit violence, and 50 days later he participates
in the torture and the murder of a young man right here in
Ottawa.
At present the departments of corrections and parole investigate
themselves when their decisions are called into question. I do
not know whom this government thinks it is fooling, but this
conflict of interest certainly does not add to the credibility
and trust of our citizens in the process. Obviously, we need an
independent review. Perhaps this office could undertake that
responsibility.
The motion suggests a role similar to that of the correctional
investigator. It is noted that the budget for the correctional
investigator is in excess of $1 million per year. In 1996 he had
17 people on staff. I would hope that something similar to this
might be allocated to a victim's advocate, especially if the
office gets involved in investigating the actions of other
departments.
I am concerned that the justice minister, who has stated that
she is open to this development, may be just making a token
gesture toward victims to make it appear that the government is
interested in their issues. If an office is to be created, it
must be set up correctly and it must have a meaningful role
within our justice system. A token effort, another bureaucracy
or another opportunity to reward the faithful with patronage
plums will certainly not satisfy our citizens. It will only add
to their angst and disenchantment with the criminal justice
system in general.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is presently
reviewing the victim's role in the criminal justice system. We
have already heard that victims have different rights depending
on which province or territory they come from. We need universal
standards so that all Canadians obtain the same rights.
Perhaps the proposed commissioner's office could be assigned the
responsibility to lobby and co-ordinate toward common benefits
right across the country. It could also be utilized to provide
national education programs to our citizens so that everyone is
advised of what assistance and resources are available to victims
of crime.
1135
It could also be used to advise and assist the government to
make appropriate amendments to our laws to provide improved
rights to victims. It could become the resource centre for our
various victims groups. There would appear to be a multitude of
opportunities for such an office.
As I have stated, the standing committee is studying the issue.
There will also be a forum on victims' rights next week and I am
sure we will obtain input on what is desired by Canadians.
The motion of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
only proposes the creation of the position. Should the
government see fit to accept the proposal, the nuts and bolts
will of course have to be hammered out as to what the
commissioner will be set up to do.
I support this motion even though I have some reservations and
concerns. The idea certainly has merit, but it must be set up
properly. The motion suggests a role similar to that of the
correctional investigator and, while the correctional
investigator's independence is valued, I am sure we can propose
an even better operation.
There must be some teeth provided to the office of the
commissioner of the rights of victims of crime. It will do
little to set up an office, proceed with annual reporting to
parliament as to its activities and recommendations, and forget
to include some form of accountability toward acting on those
recommendations.
I thank everyone for the opportunity to speak to this worthwhile
endeavour. I also thank the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for proposing this motion. It is
unfortunate that this motion has not been deemed a votable item.
Therefore, I propose a motion to this House for unanimous consent
to make Motion M-386 votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable
item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker,
Motion M-386 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada
should create the position of Commissioner for the Rights of
Victims of Crime, with a role similar to that of the
Correctional Investigator.
Just reading the motion immediately indicates the seriousness of
this matter. In light of what the victims of crime go through, I
feel this is a subject that merits our attention, and that we
must look at what is done in other Canadian provinces, Quebec
among others, since I am a Quebec MP.
As we know, the victims of crime are affected in a number of
ways: physically, psychologically, materially and socially. They
and their families therefore have specific needs. Victims must
be treated fairly and humanely by the criminal justice system.
It is important for them to be informed of their rights and of
how to ensure they are recognized, of developments in their
case, and of their obligations.
Victims do need help in dealing with their situation, but where
I am not in agreement with the hon. member tabling this motion,
and with the Reform Party, is on the demand for national
standards for these matters.
Since the Bloc Quebecois and Quebeckers have been calling for
certain things for years, and since we have invested
considerably in the social field for the past 25 or 30 years,
you will understand that, in a matter such as the one being
addressed today, we cannot start at the same point as western
Canada or the Maritimes.
This is not because we have any particular pretensions, or feel
we are better than anyone else. It is because this matter has
already been addressed in Quebec by the National Assembly, and I
believe most sincerely that the results indicate that the
provinces are better placed to deal with the creation of such
bodies or the appointment of such commissioners.
In fact, at this very moment, the matter of victims' rights is
being addressed in a parliamentary commission. There, a
representative of the government of British Columbia said more
or less what Quebec has been saying for years. British Columbia
has, perhaps, a little less experience than Quebec in this
particular area, but I must say that B.C. impressed me with
everything it is doing to help victims.
There are no doubt other provinces, too, but I have not heard of
them to date. However, British Columbia like Quebec says the
provinces are in the best position to deal with this problem.
1140
Quebec has a law on this issue. It is the act respecting
assistance for victims of crime. It may be found in c. A-13.2 of
Quebec's revised statutes. I will not read it to you because it
is fairly long, but I will point out what it concerns.
Naturally it contains a definition of a victim and a criminal
act. Dependent persons are also defined. It sets out treatment
for victims and their rights.
It provides that victims must be informed of their rights, of
the application of the law and, where public interest requires
and permits it, be informed of the police investigation, and of
the charges laid. They are entitled to medical assistance,
naturally. They are entitled, and this is mandatory, to
co-operation from the authorities.
In addition, Quebec has an office for the assistance of victims
of crime. This office is funded in large part from surplus
fines and fines the legislator allows to be charged to attackers
found guilty.
In Quebec, we have an approach the Conservative member would
like to have applied to the country as a whole. As the Reform
members were saying earlier as well, national standards must be
established to ensure that everyone is treated equally.
We must not get involved in this. I say things must be left
alone because this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The
Canadian Constitution establishes the administration of justice
as a provincial matter. I do not believe the government should
interfere in this area of jurisdiction.
As far as Quebec is concerned, I have never yet heard anyone
calling for this sort of intervention there, because we have the
act respecting assistance for victims of crime and more
importantly the office to assist them.
I am not saying there is not room for improvement. Everything
can be improved, including the office for the assistance of
victims of crimes. However, any improvement is the province's
responsibility. Conversely, if the federal government has money
it does not know what to do with, as the member from British
Columbia mentioned, and wants to invest in this area of
jurisdiction, I see no problem.
It would simply be a matter of transferring this money, which
comes from the taxes paid by Canadians and Quebeckers, to the
provincial legislatures, so that they could invest it where
necessary to improve victims' rights. In the case of Quebec, the
money could be used to help the Bureau d'aide aux victimes
d'actes criminels.
In conclusion, we oppose the motion as drafted. The Bloc
Quebecois cannot support such a motion. In Quebec, we already
have the Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels, and the
province adequately fulfils its responsibilities regarding
victims' aid.
If the federal government wants to invest—as seems to be the
case—in this area of provincial jurisdiction, it should do so
through the Quebec National Assembly and the other provincial
legislatures, so that the government of each province, including
Quebec, can invest where it wants, to help victims of crime
directly.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have a
few very brief remarks to make on behalf of members of the New
Democratic Party to indicate that we support the motion put
forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should create
the position of Commissioner for the Rights of Victims of Crime,
with a role similar to that of the Correctional Investigator.
1145
We support such an initiative. We believe it recognizes the
need for greater services for victims of crime and recognizes
their rights and role in the judicial system.
The correctional investigator has a mandate to investigate
independently complaints from inmates and to report upon the
problems of inmates that come within the responsibility of the
solicitor general. The function of the correctional investigator,
as was noted by the member from the Reform Party who spoke a few
minutes ago, is that of an ombudsman for federal corrections and
to clarify the authority and responsibility of the office within
a well-defined legislative framework.
The specific function of the office is to “conduct
investigations into the problems of offenders related to
decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner
of corrections or any person under the control and management of
or performing services for or on behalf of the commissioner that
affect offenders either individually or as a group”.
A central element of any ombudsman's function in addition to
independence and unfettered access to information in conducting
its mandatory investigations is that they act by way of
recommendation and public reporting as opposed to decisions which
are enforced.
The authority of the office within this legislative framework
lies in its ability to investigate thoroughly and objectively a
wide spectrum of administrative actions and present its findings
and recommendations initially to Correctional Service Canada. In
those instances where the CSC has failed to address the office's
findings and recommendations, the issue is referred to the
minister and eventually to parliament and the public through the
vehicle of an annual or a special report.
We in this caucus believe that creating a position of
commissioner for victims' rights based on the similar role
outlined for the correctional investigator will be an important
first step in addressing the needs and concerns of victims in our
court system. A victims' rights commissioner will help to ensure
that victims of crime receive the fair, dignified treatment they
deserve in the system and will prevent them from being
revictimized by the system.
In conclusion, we support the motion and trust that the
government will give it serious consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough will have five
minutes to conclude the debate. It is understood that at that
time after the member speaks the debate will have terminated.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am encouraged by the remarks of my colleagues on
both sides of the House. I have some concern for the comments
expressed by the parliamentary secretary. We do certainly bring
this motion forward in good faith.
There is certainly a spirit of co-operation that is existing now
within the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Although the issue of victims generally is before the committee,
this motion was brought forward at a time when there was not a
certain date. Certainly there was no attempt by anyone to do
work that would be duplicitous. This motion is simply an
opportunity to express on behalf of the House that this is an
intention this House has, that we want to see brought forward
within our justice system an office that would officially
recognize and be designated with the task of improving the
participation of victims within our current justice system.
The issue is going to be discussed on a national forum level in
the coming week. As has been suggested, this will be an
opportunity for those major stakeholders, those players within
our justice system, to speak at this forum. They will have the
opportunity to speak to the minister herself, to speak to members
of the department who hopefully will be charged with the task of
drafting a victims bill of rights or tasked with the setting up
of an office similar to that which is proposed in this motion.
1150
I do take the hon. member's comments to heart that there has
been an expression by the minister. I am very encouraged by that
and I think all members of the House should be encouraged by that
expression. The only comment or reservation I have about hearing
that is that time is running. There has been an opportunity
placed before the House to express that we want to see this
happen. We want to see it done, to use the minister's own words,
in a timely fashion. We hope that this is going to occur.
Victims across the country are going to be encouraged. They will
look at this as an initiative that will allow them fuller
participation, a greater voice. Through this forum they will be
given an opportunity to communicate directly with the minister
and those in her department who will hopefully bring these types
of legislative changes to the forefront in the very near future.
I appreciate the opportunity I have been given this morning to
discuss this issue. I take to heart the comments of members on
both sides of the House. I am very rejuvenated by the expression
of the non-partisan approach that will be taken in the very near
future on the issue of victims' rights.
I look forward to seeing this issue brought to fruition in the
very near future. There can be no greater good come from this
debate this morning than to see these types of changes brought
about. Those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of
being victims will be given a greater ability to participate and
hopefully see that justice is done in this country.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would be grateful if you would seek unanimous consent
to suspend the House until noon and then we would proceed to
Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there consent to
proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before doing that,
there being no further members rising for debate and the motion
not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The
order is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault): As agreed to, the sitting
is suspended until noon.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.)
[English]
SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 12.0 p.m.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1200
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—JUDICIAL RULINGS
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, federal legislation should
not be altered by judicial rulings, as happened in the
redefinition of the term “spouse” in the Rosenberg decision,
and that, accordingly, the government should immediately appeal
the Rosenberg decision.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the first part of this motion is to call
all who believe in a representative democracy in our country to
come to its defence. The case referred to in the motion is just
one more example of a court ruling that is undermining the voice
of Canadians in the democratic parliamentary process.
The Rosenberg decision is a good example for today because it is
current and, as we will detail, it is clearly contrary to the
statements and positions taken by the leaders of this House and
the members collectively. It is also a timely example because if
the federal government would act it can protect the legislative
process and ensure the voice of the people is not ignored.
Am I being too strong or melodramatic when I say that
increasingly judicial rulings are undermining democracy in this
country? On the contrary, I know there are many who believe I am
not stating the situation strongly enough.
My colleagues and I are confident that members will join with
others in the House who are calling for specific steps to be
taken not only in the Rosenberg case but in defence of the
democratic process in general.
During the course of today's debate members may hear the term
judicial activism. This recently coined term refers to rulings
by judges which go well beyond the intent of the law and in fact
substantively change the law to the point where judges have taken
on the role of legislators or law makers as opposed to simply
interpreting and applying the law.
To my knowledge this type of activity by some judges is
relatively new but an increasingly prevalent phenomenon in
Canada. Prior to 1982 there was an understanding that under the
Canadian bill of rights we all had inherent rights unless they
were limited by a particular legislation. In addition, certain
rights would receive protection from government interference or
intervention in the lives of our citizens.
With the constitutionalization of the charter of rights and
freedoms in 1982 some judiciary have taken greater power than
warranted or authorized.
Today as in the Rosenberg case which I will examine more closely
in a moment and in many cases like it, laws constructed and
reviewed by the people's elected legislators in the House have
been struck down or changed based on the courts' inconsistently
applied charter rights arguments.
In the Schachter case in 1992 the supreme court decided that
judges could rewrite statutes by reading into the legislation.
Effectively in this case the supreme court read into the
Constitution its ability to read in words into specific
legislation. This right was not and has never been explicitly
given to the courts in either the charter or the Constitution.
When an increasing number of unaccountable, unelected judges
read in new wording into legislation that has been debated and
passed by duly elected parliamentarians, a warning bell of a free
and democratic society must ring loudly. Today we are sounding
that alarm.
There are a number of cases I could quote from to illustrate the
point I am making. I have a list of them here but for the sake
of time I trust that my peers will refer to many of these
examples. I will move on to a specific example. If up until now
anyone has not clearly grasped the concern we have, an
examination of the Rosenberg case will bring some clarity to the
issue. It will serve as an illustrative example.
1205
The Rosenberg case concerns the federal Income Tax Act which
specifically stated “words referring to a spouse at any time of
a taxpayer including the person of the opposite sex who cohabits
at that time with the taxpayer in a conjugal relationship”. The
Ontario Court of Appeal which heard the Rosenberg case decided to
add words or read words into the law made by parliament. The law
will now read “words referring to a spouse at any time of a
taxpayer including the person of the opposite sex or same sex who
cohabits at that time with the taxpayer in a conjugal
relationship”.
As in some of the other examples I referred to, this case with
the court's redefinition of spouse to include same sex
relationships is a significant change to the law. If this
undemocratic, unaccountable change to the law is allowed to
stand, at least 40 other federal statutes which utilize the term
spouse will be affected. With the reading in of the definition
of spouse marriage itself is automatically redefined to include
same sex conjugal relationships because the definition of
marriage in the law is dependent on the definition of spouse.
Did the people of Canada have a say in this? No. Did
parliament? It is interesting that parliament has clearly
expressed itself on this issue which is why this example is so
illustrative. In the 35th parliament Motion No. 264 was
proposed. It proposed the legal recognition of same sex spouses.
Parliament spoke clearly by defeating the motion with 52 in
favour and 124 against legal recognition of same sex spouses.
This is the collective voice of the Canadian people defending the
validity of the current Canadian law which Canadians have shaped
through the democratic process. The judges in this court have
ignored that and have independently done exactly what parliament
by almost a three to one margin said not to do.
What can be done? In the short term the federal government can
defend Canadian law in the court and appeal the Ontario court
ruling. This would protect the democratic process and our
fundamental freedoms from a court that is making its own law. The
ruling came down in the Rosenberg case on April 23, 1998. The
federal government has 60 days to appeal before the law is
effectively locked in. This means the federal government has two
weeks left to launch an appeal. Time is running out. Will it
appeal? What is its position? Doing nothing, as it has, would
suggest that it supports how and what the court is doing.
Perhaps we can get some insight into what the government will do
from responses given to constituents by the justice ministers of
the Liberal government. I will quote from two letters that were
sent to constituents by the justice ministers in the 35th and
36th parliaments.
The first is dated April 24. The current justice minister told a
constituent the following: “Thus the definition of marriage is
already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the
opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully
defended and will continue to defend this concept of marriage in
the court”.
1210
The justice minister went on: “The issues of benefits for same
sex partners have been before the courts and tribunals for some
time now. I continue to believe that it is not necessary to
change well understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal
with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals may
find”.
I have a similar letter that quotes almost verbatim the same
things from the justice minister in the 35th parliament.
From the sound of these letters one might be hopeful that this
Liberal government will actually defend Canadian law and the
process. But allow me to now quote from Hansard a question
asked of the same justice minister a few days ago in the House.
The question put to the justice minister at that time was: “Does
the justice minister believe it is right for unelected judges to
make changes like this, or should those changes be made by this
parliament, by the elected representatives of the people of
Canada?”. I should point out this question was referring to the
Rosenberg case.
I will not read the whole answer of the justice minister, but
the key part is the last sentence: “In the Rosenberg case the
judiciary was doing what it was constitutionally obligated to do,
interpret and apply the law”.
What I point out here is that this issue needs some clear
leadership. What this illustrates is one message to a concerned
constituent but when it comes forward in the House of Commons we
hear a very different response from the one she sent to that
concerned constituent. Two opposite positions in a five week
period. What is the government's position on this?
I hope, as do many of my colleagues, that this government might
start with this case and follow through on its own commitment to
Canadians and demonstrate to those judges who are changing the
law, who are acting outside of their job description, that it
must stop.
In spite of the conflicting messages from the justice minister
we are hopeful and we are asking for the Liberal government to
wake up, stand up, grab hold of the reins of government and
defend the democratic freedoms and the integrity of the
legislation process in this land.
We have some excellent, dedicated men and women in our court
system in Canada, people of high integrity who give a great deal
of energy to the cause of justice in these difficult times. I
have quotes from many of them here today and many of them are
concerned about the very crux of the motion we are debating here
today. But perhaps in honour of his recent passing it would be
best to quote from the very succinct Mr. Justice Sopinka who
wisely stated what every judge should know and what every
Canadian expects: “The court must be conscious of its proper
role in the constitutional make-up of our form of democratic
government and not seek to make fundamental changes to the
longstanding policy on the basis of general constitutional
principles in its own view of the wisdom of the legislation”.
The problem of some judges and courts becoming unaccountable,
unauthorized legislators, or what some call judicial activism, is
a growing one in Canada. But Reformers believe it is a problem
that can be addressed if there is the political will to do so.
Reform has addressed this issue. In Reform's new Canada act
which was recently published and is being made available across
Canada, a specific section is included on how the supreme court
can be made more accountable and it details a process to ensure
that those appointed have the correct judicial philosophy and
qualifications to maintain order within Canadians institutions.
1215
Finally allow me to return to the motion on the floor. This
most critical motion simply calls for the federal government to
take steps to protect Canadian law and the role of parliament.
There is a two week window on this particular case within which
it can act.
We encourage and call upon the government on behalf of all
Canadians to give a clear signal that law and order will be
maintained in the land and our democratic institutions will be
secure. For the health of our democracy I urge every member of
this House, in fact I think every member of this House is
obligated to support this motion and require that the government
finally take a correct firm position to maintain our freedoms and
the integrity of the democratic process.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that what we are talking about here is
based upon tradition and history.
I am reminded that our system did not just get thought about and
invented by a handful of people as they came together. The
history of our parliamentary and judicial systems goes back to a
time when there were kings who had absolute authority. It is a
very interesting history. The English people began to push and
encroach upon the authority and the power of the crown and out of
that the process of parliamentary democracy evolved to the point
where we have it today.
I find it paradoxical. We are talking about parliament in
Canada beginning to lose its power to the supreme court and at
the same time I read in the papers that the English system is
working toward eliminating or reducing the power of those who sit
in the House of Lords by virtue of their birthright. I find it
interesting that we are in a position now where we have a
government that is very critical of following the American
example yet the American example is one in which the supreme
court has the authority to change, amend and erase laws. We have
followed this.
Has my hon. colleague given any thought to the long term
consequences of this erosion of parliamentary authority at the
hands of the supreme court?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. Yes, I have given thought to it, as have many
members of this House and many Canadians right across the
country.
This type of writing into the legislation is already affecting
many aspects of the Canadian legal system and the laws we are
governed by. I have before me a number of other rulings that
have been made by the courts that are inconsistent with the
intent of the legislators. There is no check on this process. I
can refer to one or two of these. I could go through many of them
but let me pick one.
Many people in B.C. are aware of the 1997 Delgamuukw decision.
The court ruled that native land title to 23,000 square miles of
northwestern B.C. was never extinguished. This decision
dismantles provincial and federal sovereignty. It invalidates
common law in place since 1846. It undermines jurisdiction over
territories subject to land claims, including 80% of B.C.'s land
base.
There are other cases. At the other end of the country, let us
go to P.E.I., a beautiful place I recently had the opportunity to
visit. In the 1994 Prosper decision the court overthrew a drunk
driving conviction because the Prince Edward Island government
had not provided a 24-hour legal aid hotline for a person such as
the driver in this case.
Chief Justice Lamer said provincial governments must suffer and
endure the consequences, that is his quote, if they fail to
respect the rights of the accused.
1220
I could go on with a number of these cases. These kinds of
rulings are totally destructive outside the democratic process
that we have enshrined here in Canada and which men and women 50
years ago died on the battlefields to protect.
I am very concerned as are many of the members of our party. It
is long overdue that we bring some check back into the courts to
make sure they are consistent with legislation. It is the very
reason why in Reform's new Canada act we have addressed this
specific issue, that in supreme court and other court decisions
there is some review process to make sure that the intent of
legislation has not been violated by certain courts that have
taken on a proactive or what some call a judicially active
approach to writing in laws, of writing in intent into the
legislation.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think
I understood what the member was talking about when he talked
about the supremacy of parliament and the judiciary. Can he
explain a little more clearly exactly what the relationship would
be between parliament and the judiciary? The demarcation seems
to be becoming a little greyer. It seems as though the judiciary
is moving into the role of parliament and parliament is moving
somewhere on this issue but nobody knows exactly where.
Traditionally it seems to me that the judiciary was to be
independent of parliament. It was somehow to stand alone and be
able to take an arm's length view and say “This is what the
legislators thought. This is what they enacted. This is what
they wanted the government to be and this is how the people ought
to be governed”.
Can the member clearly differentiate between the role of
parliament on the one hand and the independence of the judiciary
on the other?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to that question.
The hon. member is correct in pointing out that parliament, the
democratically elected representatives of the people, has a
primary obligation to debate and shape the laws which will govern
the people. The voices of all Canadians are reflected in this
House. One of the things I have always been appreciative of is
the debate that goes on both here and in committee. The laws that
come out of here are the compilation of what is the expressed
will of Canadians. That is the role of this House.
As far as the judiciary is concerned, it has the role of
interpreting and applying the law. What we are seeing in Canada
is an extra component added to that under the charter of rights
banner. Judges have actually taken it upon themselves to change
legislation or read into legislation. They have given themselves
the power to do this. Not all judges agree with this. In fact in
my talk I quoted Justice Sopinka, recently deceased, and there
are number of other justices whom I could quote as saying that
this is not right.
Let us look at the words of the previous justice minister in the
35th parliament. He himself said in this House that the courts
should not make policy or rewrite statutes. That is the role of
parliament.
What amazes me today is that two consecutive justice ministers
in this Liberal government have made these strong statements. Yet
when we have a case before us, and many of the others I have
referred to, that clearly violates what they are saying publicly
and in letters to their constituents, they take no action. It is
almost as if they endorse what the courts are doing. This is
something that confuses me personally. I am hoping that in the
course of today's debate when positions are put forward they will
be moved to defend the role of parliament and also the role of
the courts.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, there is one other
element I would like to ask my colleague about.
1225
It occurs to me that since I have become a member of parliament,
the people I represent have a very definite view about the laws
and that those laws are to represent them in a whole variety of
ways.
What I am concerned about and what I would like to ask my hon.
colleague is what does he see as the consequence of what I would
consider the illegitimate degradation of the law by those who do
not represent the people but who have been appointed by someone
and they see their responsibility to something besides the
Canadian people? What does he see are the consequences of the
supreme court changing these laws?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, the key consequence is
that people begin to see that the laws of the land and the
rulings of the courts are out of step with where they are at and
where they are at as a Canadian people. This is a cause for
concern for Canadians right across the country. They are feeling
more and more that there is confusion within the courts and that
the court rulings are not consistent with their priorities,
values and culture. That is a grievous concern for us.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is with great honour that I rise to speak against the Reform
motion today.
As a family physician I do not pretend to be an expert on where
the law and the state divide. I only know that we have to make
sure that our parliament does not impinge on the way in which the
law is interpreted and applied.
In the Rosenberg case Judge Abella decided that the sexual
orientation of surviving partners can in no way be seen as any
more relevant to whether they should be entitled to income
protection their partners have paid for than would be their race,
their colour or their ethnicity. She went on to say that
discrimination against homosexuals in pension arrangements serves
no “pressing and substantial government objective” and permits
“intolerance of the constitutionally protected rights of gays
and lesbians. As such it is discriminatory and cannot be viewed
as justification for a constitutional violation”.
It is interesting that the ruling says “aging and retirement
are not unique to heterosexuals” and that “courts do not
operate by poll”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I apologize for
interrupting the hon. member. I remind her that in this
discussion it is not permitted to name judges.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: “They
are required to make a principled decision about whether a
constitutional violation is demonstrably justifiable in a free
and democratic society”. The judges noted that it took 60 years
of fighting to achieve racial desegregation in the United States
and that waiting for attitudes to change can be a glacial
process.
As a family physician it is my experience when looking at the
definition of spouse, there is no question that the relationships
I saw in my practice actually worked until death did they part.
These were indeed some of the most difficult relationships with
the most serious illnesses.
The AIDS epidemic has taught us a great deal about what it means
for an individual to have been abandoned by his family, then
become a prominent artist, then be nursed to his death by his
partner, or as the language has changed, his significant other,
his long time companion, his partner, his spouse. Then at his
deathbed the so-called family come and decide that all of the
assets now belong to the family who once abandoned the young man.
In the families I looked after, there was knowledge of
relationships between two women. A woman has left her abusive
spouse and two women together have raised the child.
The woman then dies of breast cancer. There is no question in
that child's mind who is the parent.
1230
I think it is imperative that we actually get with the program
and understand that our old fashioned, prejudicial views of
heterosexual relationships being the only valid ones are truly
out of keeping with our society.
I think Canadians understand, when those two stories are told,
what the just and right thing is for us to be doing. It may be
that I was raised in a flower shop and I understood that the
significant other of many of the members of my parents' staff
happened to be of the same sex. However, it does not take that
to actually understand that the kind of discrimination and the
kind of fiddling with detail in terms of definition of spouse is
just a very thin layer of homophobia.
I am very disappointed that we, in 1998, are still discussing
this. How long ago was it that Mr. Trudeau told us the state had
no business in the bedrooms of the nation? Why are we still
fiddling with this definition of spouse? It is a value judgment.
It is a value judgment that is actually wrong.
I think it is imperative as we move on that we actually start to
redefine what it takes to make these units of our society. Our
country will only be as strong as its individual units. Whether
we redefine those units as families or as a social network, they
are linked together to form what is the strength of our country.
It is very important that we look after one another and that
we choose the people who will make decisions for us.
When I worked in the emergency department and asked somebody who
their next of kin was, it was very rarely relevant whether they
were married. It was the person they saw as being their spouse,
their significant other, their long time companion.
We have seen so-called family members who fly in from across the
country and upset everything that has been agreed upon in terms
of a patient care plan. That is truly destructive to the fabric
of our society.
I am more and more assured that sometimes parliament leads and
sometimes the courts lead. When the courts show us where the
gaps in the law are we have to follow that path. Minority rights
will never ever show up in a poll. We have to ensure, as the
stewards of this government, that we will not be led by a popular
fear of some evangelical movement of homosexuality. That is just
not the case.
People have told me that if it was not so easy to choose a
homosexual lifestyle people would not choose it. I believe it is
the most difficult choice that anyone ever has to make. I do not
think anybody willingly chooses it. It is what they are. We
have to respect that. We have to make sure that the
relationships these people have are secure. When they die they
should be entitled to their partner's pension. They should be
entitled to the assets of the person whom they feel is their
significant other, their lifetime companion, and they should be
able to reap the benefits because they both contributed toward
those benefits.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
former justice minister, now the health minister, while defending
the need for Bill C-33 made the following quote: “We shouldn't
rely upon the courts to make public policy in matters of this
kind. That is up to the legislators and we should have the
courage to do it”.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement from your minister?
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, I think what the
former justice minister was saying is that when there is
leadership we should not have to rely on the courts to make the
more difficult decisions.
If we, in parliament, only do the easy things and leave the more
difficult decisions to the courts, then we have not done the job
we were elected to do.
1235
I do not think that the former justice minister meant that we
should not do it or that the courts should not be making
principled decisions in interpreting the law, but once they have
interpreted the law in a certain way it is our responsibility to
then take the next step to see whether the law should be
changed.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, the comments, although they may be
commendable, are perhaps off the topic of what we are debating
today. Mainly we are talking about judicial activism and the
basic concern, now that we have a charter, of who does the
deciding is as important as what is being decided.
We have in our party a specific position about the constitution
of the supreme court and the appointments to the higher courts of
the provinces which states:
A. The Reform Party supports more stringent and more public
ratification procedures for Supreme Court Justices in light of
the powers our legislators are handing the courts. We believe
that an elected Senate should ratify all appointments to the
Supreme Court of Canada and all Courts where the judges are
appointed by the federal government.
B. The Reform Party supports efforts to secure adequate
regional representation on the Supreme Court, and that
nominations should be made by provincial legislatures, not
provincial governments.
C. The Reform Party supports the appointment of judges at the
Supreme Court of Canada level for fixed, non-renewable terms of
ten years.
It is a concern about the appropriate role of the court that
ultimately parliament must be supreme. If we are to get into
those kinds of policy debates which the member opposite seemingly
wanted to get into today, that is fine and well, but those issues
must be decided by parliament and not by the courts.
Now that we have a charter court, we must look very carefully at
who is doing the deciding as well as what is being decided.
Hopefully the court will stay appropriately within its bounds and
allow parliament to do its work.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Madam Speaker, it is interesting
that the member referred to the relevance of my remarks but that
he could not refrain from getting the Senate into his remarks.
I think it is imperative that we look at how we are governed.
It is interesting that in the Reform Party's new Canada act it
says that it will ask the legislator to review supreme court
decisions and modify the law if necessary.
This is indeed already happening. That is what we were
referring to with respect to the remarks of the former justice
minister. It is very important that the judiciary be
independent. It must be free of political intervention. It must
be there to do the principled thing. We have to keep partisan
politics out of it.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate.
With this motion, the Reform Party is trying to emphasize two
points. The first one is the need for Parliament to give
directions concerning the legislation, since it is appropriate,
before the laws are interpreted by the judiciary, to first have
them debated in this House. We agree with this principle.
The second point in the Reformers' motion more accurately
reflects their tradition as a homophobic group, since it is
asking the government to appeal the Rosenberg decision. The
Rosenberg decision was handed down by the Ontario Court of
Appeal in April of this year.
It struck down a specific provision of the Income Tax Act
because it did not include same sex spouses.
Those who were in the House in the last Parliament are very
familiar with the Reform Party's closed-mindedness verging on
dogmatism. They know that Reformers have a problem admitting
that two men or two women could calmly and of their own free
will decide to live together and enjoy the mutual benefits.
In a context such as this, it is obviously discriminatory to
deny homosexuals the benefits accorded heterosexuals.
1240
It is true that we would like the members of this House to make
known their views on recognition of same sex spouses.
They will have an opportunity to do so, because I intend to
introduce a bill in the House in September. I hope that the
Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Progressive Conservative
Party and the New Democratic Party will agree to make this bill
votable and that all members may express their views on this
important topic.
It is a question of ending the discrimination to which
homosexuals are subjected and recognize that two men or two
women can constitute a couple and that the government must pay
them the same benefits and allow them the same rights and
obligations as heterosexual partners.
What is the essence of the Rosenberg ruling? Ms. Rosenberg and
Ms. Evans were members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees
and were living in a homosexual relationship. They took their
case to court. The union asked Revenue Canada, which
administers the Income Tax Act, to recognize their pension plan.
The reason we are discussing the Rosenberg decision today is
that the Canadian Union of Public Employees felt that Revenue
Canada had acted in a discriminatory manner by not agreeing to
recognize a pension plan which should be, because the Income Tax
Act does not recognize same sex spouses.
What did the Ontario Court of Appeal say? It said that it was
indeed discriminatory and that paragraph 252(4) of the Income
Tax Act should be read as explicitly referring to same sex spouses.
What is still more interesting where the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms is concerned, is that there is a possibility for the
legislator, as for the courts, to restrict certain freedoms.
This possibility open to the legislator and to the courts to
restrict certain freedoms is covered under article 1.
I would like to share with you the Ontario Appeal Court's
conclusion on article 1 as it applied to the Income Tax Act in
the Rosenberg case. It is most eloquent, and to my mind the
most interesting part of the decision.
It states “Aging and retirement are not unique to
heterosexuals”. Who could deny that homosexuals also age and
that this is a law of nature, something that is inevitable, and
not connected in any way with fortune, with religion, or with
race. It says “Aging and retirement are not unique to
heterosexuals—and there is nothing about being heterosexual that
warrants the government's preferential attention to the
possibility of economic insecurity.
It cannot therefore be a pressing and substantial objective to
single out for exclusive recognition, the income protection of
those older Canadians with sexual preferences that are
heterosexual.”
This is where the Reform Party will have to provide an
explanation some day. When two men or two women work, make
contributions, are consumers and taxpayers, where is the logic
in a member rising in this House and not acknowledging, with the
minimum of honesty one is entitled to expect of
parliamentarians, that there is something discriminatory in
this?
We must be clear about this. The matter of recognizing same sex
spouses is not a question of being on the left or on the right
politically.
1245
I should point out that, in 1992, then Minister of Justice Kim
Campbell decided, following another decision by an Ontario
court, to recognize that discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation was not acceptable. I am referring to the famous
Haig case, which led to an amendment of the Canadian Human
Rights Act. This in turn enabled us, as parliamentarians, to
pass Bill C-33, two years ago.
It must be recognized that two men, or two women, can have a
satisfying, consensual relationship and still be consumers,
active citizens involved in their community, and also pay union
dues and fulfil all their obligations as members of the
workforce. This is first and foremost a matter of
non-discrimination.
Some day, the Reform Party will have to say whether it agrees
that it is not acceptable for a state and a government to
discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It is well
known that one does not choose to become a homosexual. It is not
a matter of choice. I did not wake up some day asking to be a
homosexual, and a heterosexual the next day. Homosexuality is
based on desire, on what one is attracted to.
As long as the Reform Party continues to table homophobic
motions that are unworthy of parliamentarians, what message does
it send to the public? It sends the message that it does not
recognize the reality of people who are engaged in homosexual
common law relationships.
This is not to the Reformers' credit. To be sure, a debate must
take place. Reformers are right when they say it is unacceptable
in a democracy to leave it to judges to make the decisions.
However, once a decision has been made, we cannot decide that it
will not be binding, or that we will not comply with it. Because
this is the first part of the Reform motion.
Could the Reform Party not give thought to what the various
tribunals have said in the past ten years or so? Tribunals
dealing with labour and health matters, administration and
general law have found it to be discriminatory to deny same sex
spouses the benefits accorded heterosexual spouses. This is
discriminatory, because these people are taxpayers. They
contribute through their taxes.
What I would really like is for the Reform Party to acknowledge
once and for all that discrimination exists. Homosexuals are
consumers and taxpayers too.
When people have lived together for five, ten or fifteen years
and one spouse dies and the other is not entitled to survivor
benefits, nothing—no law, no moral precept, no principle of
fairness—can justify the government, the legislator's denying
these benefits to those who are entitled to them because they
paid for them. The legislator should amend all the laws, not
just the Income Tax Act.
When I introduced my bill in 1994, I looked at all the laws
containing a definition of spouse. There were some 70 of them.
This debate is inevitable, and I say to the Reformers that
recognition of same sex spouses is inevitable.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
while I believe the member is sincere I believe he is off topic.
What is being discussed today is very clearly judicial activism
and its usurpation of parliamentary purpose.
The judiciary propensity to reinterpret laws beyond simple
declaration and clear imminent wording is of great concern. The
definition of a spouse is very clearly a man and a woman. A
change to this basic of all definitions should not come from the
courts but by parliament decree as the elected voice of all
Canadians.
Does the member not support that this be decided by
parliamentary decree?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that
it is important that there be a fair debate in the House and
that the necessary time be taken to discuss recognition of
same sex spouses.
1250
I caution my colleague, however, not to evade the issue. During
this debate, I call on my colleagues to rise and state whether
or not they believe that two men or two women living together in
a homosexual relationship should have the same benefits and the
same obligations as partners in a heterosexual relationship,
because that is what this is really all about.
Some members may have preferred that Parliament lead off the
debate, but the judges have not erred in ruling, both in the
Supreme Court and in lesser administrative tribunals, that there
was discrimination.
I hope that our Reform Party colleagues will agree with us that
there has been discrimination and send a clear signal to
lawmakers.
Legislation must be amended, and we should show how enlightened
this Parliament is by voting unanimously in favour of
recognizing same sex spouses.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Madam Speaker, the question being
debate here is the definition of a spouse. If that definition is
to be changed or to be altered I think the place to make that
change and to alter that wording is to fairly debate it in the
House where we can all participate in the debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I will be introducing a bill in
the House in September that will give parliamentarians an
opportunity to debate recognition of same sex spouses.
I hope that the Board of Internal Economy, the Reform Party, the
government and all parties represented in the House will make
this bill votable, because I will accept the result.
My colleague is right in saying that this debate should be held
in the House. We must vote on an important matter such as this.
I will exercise all the democratic latitude that there must be
between parliamentarians in trying to persuade my Reform Party
colleague that it is discriminatory not to recognize same sex
spouses, and I remain optimistic that they will vote in favour
of my bill.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of sadness and
disappointment that I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in
the New Democratic Party caucus to debate this Reform motion
which can only be described as a thinly veiled attempt to promote
and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If the motion were truly an attempt to open parliamentary debate
and discussions on making our judicial and court system more
responsive, more effective and more democratic, we would have
before us today a motion dealing with those very issues, a motion
that would have talked about the question of the length of
appointments of judges to the bench. It would have talked about
balance in terms of gender, people of colour and aboriginal
people on the bench. It would have talked about proper training
and education for judges to make better decisions. However, the
motion does not touch on any of those issues. It does not
address the question of democratization of the supreme court or
our judicial system.
We are dealing today with a motion which seeks to end the
ability of judges to apply the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. We would have a charter but the rights and freedoms of
Canadians would not be protected by it. Those rights include as
we all know freedom of speech; freedom of association; and the
right to equality without discrimination on the basis of race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or
disability. These rights and freedoms are very dear to
Canadians. They will not give them up. They will not give them
away easily because the Reform Party tells them to do so.
In the Rosenberg case the court found that lesbians and gay men
contributed equally to pension plans and should be equally
entitled to the benefits. Before the ruling the federal
government penalized employers that provided the same pension
benefits to gay and lesbian employees as they did to all their
other employees. The federal government would deregister the
pension plan for tax purposes and make it unviable. The federal
government was in essence forcing employers to discriminate
against certain employees and deprive them of benefits the
employees were paying for.
1255
In the Rosenberg case there was an employer, the Canadian Union
of Public Employees which wanted to offer equal pension benefits
to all its employees and was prohibited by the federal government
from doing so. As a result of Rosenberg, the spouses of people
who pay into employer pension plans will now be able to benefit
equally from the pension plan regardless of sex.
The Rosenberg decision is supported by a wide variety of
Canadians, by many equality seeking groups. I include in that
list the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Disabled Women's
Network and anti-poverty groups.
The New Democratic Party applauds the Rosenberg decision and
would not want to see the clock turned back to the 19th century
as the Reform Party would have it. We are almost in the next
millennium and the Reform Party still has not caught up with this
one. Unfortunately neither have the Liberals. The Liberals wait
for the courts to make these decisions because they do not have
the courage to do the right thing. They do not want to be
associated with lesbian and gay equality rights.
The Liberal government through its inaction on equality rights
has given the Reform Party a platform today to pursue its
anti-gay and anti-lesbian policies. If the Liberal government
would stop penalizing employers that want to treat all their
employers equally, we would not be having this discussion today.
The New Democratic Party of British Columbia has recognized same
sex partnerships. It has recognized that the lack of recognition
of same sex partnerships has contributed to child poverty as same
sex partners were not liable for child support. Lesbians, gay
men and bisexuals are not only asking for the same rights as
heterosexuals but for the same responsibilities too. The Nova
Scotia government just ruled on this issue and extended pension
benefits to surviving partners of same sex relationships.
Today's motion shows the Reform Party's true colours. It is not
a pretty picture. The leader of the Reform Party was quoted in
the Vancouver Sun as saying “homosexuality is destructive
to the individual and in the long run to society”. Another
member said that he would fire a lesbian or a gay man or send
them to the back of the shop. One of his colleagues chimed in
that employment discrimination against gays and lesbians is in
the best interest of society. The deputy justice critic for the
Reform Party said that gay bashing was not a human rights issue.
The Liberals have also had their fair share of anti-equality
MPs, Roseanne Skoke to name one. She said: “Homosexuality is
the scourge of mankind”. The leader of the Conservative Party
was quoted in 1994 as saying that protecting gay men and lesbians
from discrimination is too costly for taxpayers.
In the early 1990s my colleague, the NDP member for Burnaby,
moved an amendment that would have allowed same sex benefits for
members of parliament. At the time the Mulroney Tories axed it.
Today the Reform Party is following in the Mulroney tradition.
Let us make no mistake. The Reform Party did not choose the
Rosenberg decision by accident for this ill advised motion. The
Reform Party is asking the government in this motion to appeal
the Rosenberg decision. I call on the government to stop taking
the lead from the Reform Party in these matters and to end this
unfair and unequal treatment of employees now.
The Reform Party likes to stick its nose into people's bedrooms
and kitchens and tell them whom they can sleep with, whom they
can fall in love with and whom they may choose as a life partner.
The Reform Party wants to decide who is a family and who is not
a family. It wants to dictate that one widow who was with her
partner for 20 years can receive a survivor's pension because her
partner was male while another widow who was with her partner for
20 years cannot because her partner was female.
Lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes and they pay into the
same benefit schemes as everyone else. Yet, if it were up to the
Reform Party, they would pay into those schemes but their
families would never benefit from them. That is discrimination.
That is just plain wrong.
Canadians are watching this debate with great interest today.
They will be hearing the silly comments and twisted
rationalizations of the Reform Party trying to put a respectable
veneer on plain and simple bigotry. The New Democratic Party
wholeheartedly opposes the motion and everything it represents.
New Democrats believe the government and the Reform Party have
no business deciding whom one can love, dictating who is a family
and telling employers to discriminate against their employees.
1300
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the end of my colleague's
speech and I was quite shocked by the amount of rhetoric and the
amount of comments that did not really having anything to do with
the motion she presented.
I would like to ask her a simple question because the heart of
this issue, the heart that we are debating here today, is whether
members and Canadians believe that the judiciary should make law
in this country. Should their decisions take precedence over
what we the elected representatives of this country decide?
I ask the member whether she believes that the judiciary should
lead and set the precedents or whether those topics should come
to the floor of the House for open debate so people can have
input and legislators elected by the people of Canada can discuss
these matters in an open way.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, for the member's
benefit, what he heard this morning from our side of the House
was not rhetoric. It was an unveiling of Reform's true
intentions with this motion and a deserved reaction of anger,
disappointment and hurt that the Reform Party would be attempting
to promote discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and
on the basis of pretending to make our judiciary more accountable
and more democratic.
The judiciary, the supreme court and our court system interpret
law and apply longstanding statutes. In this case we are dealing
with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the
Canadian Human Rights Act. Both of these are very clear regarding
equality rights and both are very clear about not discriminating
on the basis of sexual orientation.
We have with the Rosenberg case a clear application of
longstanding statutes that reflects the sentiment and feelings of
Canadians right across the country.
Let me remind members of the Reform Party that judicial rulings
are used to overturn or redefine the law when that law is judged
to be unfair. There was a time when battered women were sent to
hospitals with broken bones. They were raped repeatedly. Their
children's lives and their lives were threatened and they were
jailed for defending themselves.
There was a time when the police could not or would not help
these women. If the women killed their abusive husbands in
self-defence they were jailed for life. The courts expanded our
views of self-defence to include battered women syndrome so that
women who were beaten, abused and in fear for their lives were
not further punished by the judicial system.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
recall a 1997 murder case in British Columbia where in hot
pursuit police officers entered the premises where a prime
suspect was located and made an arrest. This individual was the
person who had committed the murder.
The ruling the court made was that a warrant was required which
was in conflict with our definition of hot pursuit and all these
things. Consequently that ruling required a new warrant issuing
process to be created and today a killer walks free.
I think these are the types of things that should be looked at
by committee and in this place. We need to fix these problems. It
is up to us to do so. It is not up to the courts to fix these
problems.
Does the member agree with that Feeney solution?
1305
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Speaker, as I said in my
opening remarks, if the intention of the Reform motion was truly
to look at ways to improve our judiciary and bring more
democratic principles to the supreme court, Reformers would have
done so in an open, honest way. But they have singled out in this
motion the Rosenberg decision, which is specifically about
applying the law in terms of same sex benefits and recognizing
same sex couples.
We are dealing with a very serious situation. That party is
trying to roll back the clock instead of dealing with the issues
at hand. I suggest to Reformers that if they are serious about
improving our legal system, our court system, they will stand up
for equality in every sense of the word and work to change our
systems accordingly.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I rise to speak to
this motion brought forward by the Reform Party.
It appears we are debating issues that have been with us for
time immemorial. We are talking about basics here, of how the
judiciary and the legislative body operate independent of one
another.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre in his motion appears to have
overlooked some of the very basics that we learned in politics
101. What we are talking about is a demonstration of a profound
understanding of the basic principles of democracy. Today we are
spending valuable time discussing and perhaps reinforming the
Reform Party about the basic principles of democracy. I would
have preferred spending precious time in the House debating more
constructive issues.
Our democracy, I think we can all agree, is not perfect by any
means but is one of the best democracies in the world. One of
the reasons why our democracy is so well respected and so envied
by the world is that it lays upon some of the very strong rules
of law, that the executive, the judiciary and the legislative
powers are separate and independent of one another.
If politicians were to have significantly more power than the
judiciary and be in a position to at their whim and at the drop
of a hat reverse legal decisions, we would live in potential
chaos. There are checks and balances intrinsic to the system if
the system is to work.
If Reformers were in power, if they had their way, politicians
would live by the stories of the day. We would be twisting in
the wind. Every time a certain issue arose we would stampede to
correct that and we would try to do exactly what the media told
us.
We cannot live by polls. There has to be a measured, tempered
response when the need arises. We cannot be reactionary. The
word rhetoric is used constantly in this place. We do not hear
any more rhetoric than from the Reform Party. That does not
further the national agenda.
If legislative power is there to legislate, then the judiciary
is surely there to make sure the laws are going to be respected.
Judges are also there to make sure laws passed by
parliamentarians are respected. This is part of the highest
court in the land, certainly, but the Constitution and the
charter of rights also have to be respected. Sometimes it comes
to being, perhaps wittingly, perhaps unwittingly, that these are
infringed by legislation that has been passed at some time in the
past or perhaps something that comes out as recently as today.
All this may appear quite dry to those who are at home
listening, but there is a need to revisit some of these
fundamental issues. Revisiting them will sometimes help to
redefine the positions and tell us the reality of the present
system. If we are to embark on changing the course of moral
values we should do so in a very circumspect way.
Before going any further I want to make sure we are going to be
discussing this issue in a serious way. The Reform motion has
been brought to the floor without this understanding that needs
to be in place. The member for Calgary Centre has, for all
intents and purposes, told the House of Commons that we should
automatically appeal this decisions from the Ontario Court of
Appeal. We cannot mandate a court to do that. That is not our
place. That is completely outside the bounds of what we should be
doing.
What is the Rosenberg case about? It is simply about the
definition of a spouse. It relates to the Income Tax Act and
pension registration, a rather specific, on the point scenario.
Once again we have seen the Reform Party take a specific factual
scenario and try to impose broad sweeping implications from it.
That is simply improper.
1310
This litigation arose from the result of Revenue Canada's
inability to accept and register amendments that would extend
survivor benefit entitlement to same sex spouses.
Let us not read too much into that. Let us not react too
harshly. Let us not go over the top at the first instance. The
Attorney General of Canada concedes that the extension of
benefits was discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation
but pleaded that the inequality was reasonable and demonstrably
justified in section 1 of the charter, the saved by one
provision, that the infringing limitation, the exclusion of
cohabitating gay and lesbian partners of contributing employees
of the Income Tax Act, has a pressing and substantive objective.
That was what was being discussed by the court.
The Ontario Court of Appeal was unanimous in its decision:
Differences in cohabitation and gender preferences are a reality
to be equitably acknowledged, not an indulgence to be
economically penalized.
These are telling, straightforward words. People have to be
treated equally based on their choices, human understanding,
treating people equally under the law. This is what Canadian law
is all about.
Basically there is no rational reason to deprive a gay or
lesbian employee of the same choice that a heterosexual employee
would have, both as to beneficiary and as to relationship. I
quote again from the judgment:
Aging and retirement are not unique to heterosexuals and there is
nothing about being heterosexual that warrants the government's
preferential attention to the possibility of economic insecurity.
It cannot therefore be a pressing and substantial objective to
single out for exclusive recognition, the income protection of
those older Canadians whose sexual preferences are heterosexual.
It is talking about not distinguishing one sexual preference
from another in the legislation. That is all.
A final quote:
It is difficult to see a rational connection between protecting
heterosexual spouses from income security on the death of their
partner and denying cohabitating gay and lesbian partners the
same protection. The sexual orientation of surviving partners
can in no way be seen as any more relevant to whether they should
be entitled to income protection their partners have paid for,
than would be their race, colour, or ethnicity.
Those appear to me to be very straightforward principles with
which everyone in this House should agree and should embrace.
Contrary to what the Reform Party has tried to read into this
decision, it is quite clear that it has nothing to do with the
definition of family. This case is specific. It deals only with
the exclusion of same sex benefits and it is a question of
discrimination based on sexual orientation for economic purposes.
This is not a broad sweeping decision that is made to undercut
the definition of family. Whoever says it speaks to the question
of family or the definition of family is wrong.
Like everyone in this House, I strongly agree that the family is
something that must be preserved in society. It is a value that
must be recognized and respected and I do not believe that this
decision goes in any way toward changing that. Again, there is
no link between sexual orientation on a prohibited ground of
discrimination and an attempt to undermine this concept of
family.
Members of the Reform Party believe that the change in the
definition of spouse would automatically lead to some recognition
of same sex marriages. That is simply not the case here. I
personally do not wish that to happen. However, the best proof
that this is not even being contemplated is that we have seven
provinces and one territory that have human rights codes
prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Not a
single one has recognized same sex marriages.
I do not believe this decision will lead to a legal recognition
of same sex marriages. This decision is not talking about in any
way redefining family or marriages. They are totally separate
issues.
What is important in our society is not whether one is
heterosexual or homosexual, whether one is polygamous or
abstinent. It is whether one is able to lead a quality of life
and the law is there to protect people and ensure that they do
have the same entitlement to that quality of life. It does not
matter what one's choice is on this issue. It has to be one of
personal choice and there has to be respect and tolerance for
that.
1315
Some legislative conditions have to be put in place and some
legislative conditions may have to be changed as a result of
changing mores. However this does not mean that anyone of us is
obliged to promote homosexuality. That is not what the debate is
about, but there is a difference between promoting and respecting
human rights.
The Rosenberg case is about human rights and making sure that
there is not discrimination in our existing laws. Discrimination
is treating people differently or giving them different benefits
or not entitling them to benefits because of some choice.
Section 252(4) of the Income Tax Act was discriminatory. I
believe it was a good decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal
which corrected that. We are not here to perpetrate
discrimination. That is not the purpose of this place and
therefore the choice is not ours to make. The choice has been
made.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate my colleague on his opening remarks.
I would however like to ask him whether he does not feel it is
appropriate to act somewhat the same way his party did when it
was in government in 1992. As members will recall, a very
important judgment was brought down, also by an Ontario court,
in the Haig case. It declared the Canadian Human Rights Act
unconstitutional because it did not include sexual orientation
among its prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The Minister of Justice of the day decided that the act would
not only be binding, but would be binding across Canada.
It is thanks to Kim Campbell, Prime Minister of Canada in 1992,
that we have finally had to review the Canadian Human Rights Act
and to provide additional protection relating to
non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to all
employees under federal jurisdiction.
Does our colleague not believe that the government should follow
Kim Campbell's example and decide not to appeal the decision,
and to make this binding across Canada, immediately?
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague from the Bloc for recognizing the contributions to the
cause of justice the Conservative Party has made in the past.
We certainly have a great deal to be proud of in that regard. We
continue to strive to make positive contributions to changes in
the law that will further the cause of justice and ensure the
underpinnings of our justice system do not discriminate.
The Haig decision the hon. member mentioned was an important
one. The minister of justice at the time, Kim Campbell, did
further the cause of justice as did other members of that
government.
I am certainly encouraged by the remarks I have heard on the
floor with respect to the Rosenberg decision. I do not feel in
any way the government will be mandating that its agents appeal
this decision. That choice will be made independent of the
remarks and the discussion taking place here. This is certainly
not to say that this is not a place for this type of discussion.
However we have to maintain judicial independence from the
judiciary. The legislative arm must do its job to legislate.
I encourage the remarks and acknowledge the hon. member's
interest in this issue. I thank him for that question.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I commend the Conservative House leader on his excellent
speech.
If the government decides not to undertake an appeal of the
Rosenberg decision, is the House leader for the Conservative
Party saying that he personally would support that decision and
that his party would as well?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will be quite clear
and unequivocal. We have taken the position that we are not
encouraging the government to appeal this decision.
I have read the decision. I totally agree with the commentary
and the remarks of the deciding judges. We feel this issue has
been settled for all intents and purposes. Therefore we are not
urging the government to appeal and we are not supporting this
motion.
1320
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour to take part in this very important
debate today in the House.
Over the past several years our court system, the judiciary, has
gone far beyond its mandate of interpreting the law reflected
through the intent of parliament to reading in meanings never
intended by the elected representatives of the nation. This
process which has slowly evolved has put the creation of law
through precedent setting opinions into the hands of our
judiciary.
Canadians are saying that they do not want a few unelected
individuals to make these decisions. There is no counterbalance
in the current system to rectify the problem when the government,
which is intended to reflect the will of the majority, refuses to
take responsibility.
I would argue that the Liberal government has abrogated its
responsibility in this case and in many others concerning the
idea of judicial activism, whether it be the Feeney case in 1997,
the Delgamuukw decision of 1997, the Eldridge decision, the Halm
decision, the Singh decision, the Prosper decision or the Heywood
decision. We could go on and on.
The motion being presented today is about the idea of judicial
activism and that the courts determine the law of the nation
through the precedent setting decisions they make. That is what
we are debating today. We are asking whether this is something
that should be happening.
If this is something that we clearly endorse, we have to ask
ourselves why in the world we are here as elected representatives
of the nation. If the courts are simply to determine what law is
in the nation, why in the world are we here?
We are here, I would argue, to debate openly and freely the
merits of arguments and decisions that are made. We as elected
representatives of the nation have been sent here to debate
issues just like this one to speak our minds, to speak the wills
of our constituents in this place and not to be afraid to do so.
I turn my attention to a very important court decision mentioned
in the motion. I have no fear in referring to the Rosenberg
decision. That decision or the government's lack of action in
response to the decision illustrates that the government has once
again failed to demonstrate leadership. It is simply allowing
the courts to go ahead and read words into a decision which could
have a profound impact on many other pieces of federal
legislation, without lifting a finger, without even mentioning
it, hoping that this case and others like it will just go away as
well as all kinds of different areas and different topics.
The justice minister as our attorney general has until June 22
to appeal the decision. To date she has offered no indication
that she is willing to do so. In fact she stated to my colleague
in the House, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, on May 27:
In the Rosenberg case the judiciary was doing what it was
constitutionally obligated to do, interpret and apply the Law.
I would argue that the justice minister is sorely missing the
point in the fact that she cannot see that words read into that
decision will have a profound impact on federal legislation. We
are burying our heads in the sand if we say in this place that
the decisions founded by a court do not have any precedent in
later decisions. That is simply not what history has taught us
in this place. History has taught us that decisions made in our
courts set a precedent for future decisions and affect the law.
I would also like to state I am sharing my time with my
colleague, which I neglected to say at the beginning of my
speech.
The judiciary is making the law, reinterpreting it based on its
philosophical framework. There is no timely action from the
justice minister which we heard in relation to the Young
Offenders Act.
Members of the opposition ask if the minister will continue to
do nothing, to sleepwalk and to demonstrate her weakness on
serious issues. It is quite telling that the predecessor to the
Minister of Justice, the current Minister of Health, tried to
reassure parliamentarians that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
was not “going to get into the business of redefining spouse or
family or any of that”.
In referring to Commissioner Max Yalden he stated:
He has spoken about benefits, but he has said he's not going to
get into redefining these terms legally.
1325
All should be fine then. In fact we should not have any
concerns at all.
In 1996 in Canada v. Moore, again a case centring on same
sex benefits, the government tried to solve the problem by using
the term partner which would have rectified the situation. That
would have been a solution to the situation. In June 1997 the
commission instructed Treasury Board that the term partner was
not good enough and ordered Treasury Board to refer to same sex
partners as spouses.
The commission that the former justice minister said had no
intention of redefining the term spouse completely contradicted
him. In fact we have to look back at his words to see them for
what they were, just empty words with no action from the Minister
of Justice. Talk, debate or words can be empty if no action
follows. In debate on Bill C-33 the former justice minister
stated:
We should not rely upon the courts to make public policy in
matters of this kind. That is up to the legislators, and we
should have the courage to do it.
I ask the former justice minister if he might nudge his seatmate
and get her to take some action on this case and many others.
Parliament has a responsibility to make the nation's laws as
citizens give legislators that right when they vote them into
office. Parliament has the unique role of debating the balance
between rights and responsibilities in a democratic society and
the courts should give them the opportunity to do so. The
legislatures are subject to public scrutiny and the best place to
have a debate matters of critical social importance is in the
House of Commons.
Why the concern with regard to this case and to others? What
impact does this decision have for the future? If the attorney
general fails to act then the Rosenberg decision will likely set
a precedent which will have a domino effect on over 40 pieces of
legislation, all of which will strike at the heart of the
definition of spouse and the definition of marriage in Canadian
law.
Marriage is the fundamental cornerstone of any society. A
supreme court justice in the Egan decision in 1995 stated:
Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our
legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding
philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison
d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have
the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the
product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared
for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.
I would continue by saying that Canadians have to wonder what
are the motivation and intent of the government. I remember no
mention of redefining marriage in the Liberals' red book platform
in last year's election or in the Speech from the Throne.
We are wondering what it is that the government is doing. Will
it simply allow this decision to go ahead without taking any
action, in fact allowing a precedent to be set upon which further
decisions of the courts will be founded?
Failing to appeal the Rosenberg case simply restates this weak
government's lack of direction, lack of responsibility and
disregard for marriage and family as cornerstones of Canadian
society. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have a
window of opportunity to act.
The Prime Minister has scoffed at a recent resolution raised by
over 1,200 Reform Party members at an assembly to conduct a
family impact analysis to federal legislation. Again I state
that actions speak louder than words.
Official opposition members urge the government to act and to
put the creation of law back into the hands of elected
representatives. To do any less is a signal to Canadians that
the government is failing once again.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
believe that our colleague from the Reform Party has, without
meaning to, misled the House and taken some rather excessive
liberties with the facts, when he calls upon us to understand
that the decision, as drafted, raises the question of redefining
the family.
1330
I would ask him to show me where in the Rosenberg decision,
brought down last April, as you know, he can see the definition
of family being questioned. I believe that making such a
statement here in the House of Commons, is not very responsible,
and indicates a rather superficial understanding of what the
decision is all about.
What the decision states is that it is discriminatory not to
give survivors benefits to workers who have contributed and who
should receive them under article 15 of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
I would like my hon. colleague to indicate where in this
decision, which I have before me, there is any cause for concern
about a redefinition of family.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for his question.
The matter we are debating today goes to the court ruling where
four words were read into the decision in the Ontario Court of
Appeal and that is redefining the term spouse. That is what we
are debating. We are debating the courts' and the judiciary's
acts of doing that in their decisions, where they read into a
decision something that is not there and something that is not in
the context of that particular decision. That is what we are
talking about today. That is the point.
We are talking about the judiciary, their role and what has
happened in this case. It is quite clear as with many other cases
that the Ontario Court of Appeal in this case has gone ahead and
read something into law that was not previously there. It has set
a precedent. We all know in this place and we are being very
naive if we do not admit that decisions made and rendered by
justices have an impact on further decisions down the road.
What we are looking at here is a view to the future. In this
decision and others like it in all different areas of
legislation, if we in this place say that it is fine for the
courts to go ahead and to redefine what elected parliamentarians
in this place were sent to do, then what is the reason for us to
be here?
The reason for us to be here is to debate issues like this one
and many other important issues. These debates should take place
on the floor of the House of Commons so that we who have been
elected by our constituents to represent their views are able to
argue strongly in many ways the points we believe reflect the
will of our constituents.
If the government abrogates its responsibility and allows the
courts to go ahead and redefine law, then it is not showing
leadership. The point of the motion today is that we need in
this place to have open debates about very important topics. If
we fail to do that, then we miss the point of why we are here.
We must openly debate issues of great importance without any
fear of being labelled as others have done in the House today. We
must openly and honestly debate these issues and bring them to
the forefront.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on the supply day motion
before us, that in the opinion of the House federal legislation
should not be amended or redrafted by judicial rulings as has
happened in the redefinition of the term spouse in the Rosenberg
decision and that accordingly the government should immediately
appeal the Rosenberg decision.
At the outset I would like to make something clear which seems
not to have been completely understood in this debate to this
point.
We are essentially debating two propositions in this motion.
1335
First is the general proposition that federal legislation should
not be amended or redrafted by judicial rulings, in other words,
the proposition of the principle of parliamentary supremacy.
That is a centrally important subject which ought to seize all
members of this place. All Canadians ought to be engaged in the
dynamic and centrally important debate about the appropriate role
of the courts vis-à-vis the supremacy of parliament. This
essentially is a debate not between parliamentary supremacy and
judicial review, but between parliamentary supremacy or judicial
supremacy.
Ultimately in any system of government where checks and balances
are divided and authority is separated between different branches
of government, one must be supreme. We cannot avoid that
ultimate question. The answer which the tradition of parliament
and our common law has provided to us over the last several
hundred years is that parliament is supreme. This is the highest
court of the land. The buck stops here with respect to the law
that is made for all Canadians.
That is the first general premise of the motion to which I will
speak.
I want to emphasize the second element of the motion which is
that the government should immediately appeal the Rosenberg
decision.
I cannot understand for the life of me why any member would
oppose at least the second proposition in this motion, that the
government ought immediately to appeal the Rosenberg decision.
As it appears from the debate this morning, there are members
among us who believe that the courts ought to have the power to
rewrite federal legislation regardless of what we or our
constituents believe. That is a respectable position to hold,
but we have not yet allowed the courts to have the final word on
this.
The Rosenberg decision, which we are discussing, was a decision
of the appeals court of the province of Ontario. The last I
checked my constitutional law, the appeals court of a province is
not the highest judicial tribunal of the land, but rather the
Supreme Court of Canada is.
All we are asking in the second element of this motion is for
the Attorney General of Canada to have her officials file an
order to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada the judgment
of the Ontario appeals court. I say to my colleagues here who
support the notion of judicial supremacy over parliamentary
supremacy to allow their allies in the judiciary, allow the
marvellous judges of the supreme court to have their say which
they have not yet had.
I find a certain irony in all of this. The learned judge who
wrote the majority decision at the Ontario appeals court, Madam
Justice Rosalie Abella, we understand was very much in the
running for appointment to the most recent opening to the Supreme
Court of Canada. Is it not interesting that the very same
justice minister who has been prevaricating now for six weeks on
whether or not to appeal Madam Justice Abella's decision to the
Supreme Court of Canada is the very same attorney general who
would not appoint that justice to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. There have been several rulings in this House by
Speakers of which the member is well aware to the effect that it
is inappropriate to name a specific judge. It is absolutely
inappropriate. If members want to speak generally about the
judiciary that is fine, but to name a specific judge who cannot
defend herself is an abuse of the privileges of this House and it
is cowardly.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any
standing order or convention of this place which prohibits
members from referring to specific judgments made by specific
justices. I do not know how I can quote from particular
judgments, as I intend to do in my remarks, made by certain
justices without referring to their names.
1340
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I refer members to
Beauchesne's citation 493 which states:
All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of
personal attack and censure have always been considered
unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as
breaches of order.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that
clarification. It was not my intention and I will not be
attacking justices here.
It is worth mentioning that those who believe that judges ought
to be in power with the authority to rewrite the laws of this
parliament do not believe that they should be subject to public
criticism. I think there is a double standard there. If we have
judges who believe that they ought to be essentially glorified
politicians, they ought to be prepared to allow their judgments
to undergo full public debate and scrutiny, which is what we are
seeking to do here.
I was speaking about the justice who wrote the majority decision
in Rosenberg and who is the very same justice who the justice
minister decided not to appoint to the Supreme Court of Canada.
One could logically infer from the most recent appointment to the
supreme court that the justice minister lacked sufficient
confidence in Madam Justice Rosalie Abella to appoint her to the
Supreme Court of Canada. At the same time, she has not yet
decided to let the supreme court decide the issue. In other
words, the same justice who made the decision is being allowed to
have the final say when the justice minister did not have
sufficient confidence in that justice to put her on the highest
court of tribunal. I find a certain inconsistency here.
Let me address some of the remarks made by the learned and hon.
House leader of the fifth party. I found his remarks
disappointing and somewhat incoherent logically. The first point
is that he argued the Rosenberg decision was extremely—
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The opposition cannot split hairs here. Not to
mention the judge's name is fine but then one cannot, having
referred to her already, say scurrilous things like a particular
judge was not chosen to go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The hon. member does not have a clue, nor do I or anyone else in
the House except for the Prime Minister, as to who the justice
minister considered for that appointment to the Supreme Court of
Canada. He has no clue. For him to besmirch—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is a point of
debate.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, that was an interesting
little rant from the member opposite.
As I said, I want to address some of the remarks made by the
House leader of the fifth party. He said that this judgment was
a very narrow one, merely a technical application and that
members of my party were trying for some malicious reason to
argue unreasonably that this affects the law more broadly than it
actually does.
I find it entirely inconsistent when he argues that it is
unreasonable for this parliament to define spouse as including
members of the opposite sex but that it is reasonable for this
House to define marriage as including members of the opposite sex
alone.
In other words, he is in favour of discrimination, in his words,
when it comes to marriage, but he is against it when it comes to
spouse. I find this kind of legalistic pettifogging, quite
frankly, to be incoherent.
1345
I will read the relevant section of the Income Tax Act which was
affected by the Rosenberg judgment into the record so we can all
see exactly what this judgment did:
(a) words referring to a spouse at any time of a taxpayer
include the person of the opposite sex who cohabits at that time
with the taxpayer in a conjugal relationship...
(b) references to marriage shall be read as if a conjugal
relationship between 2 individuals who are, because of paragraph
(a), spouses of each other were a marriage;
(c) provisions that apply to a person who is married apply to a
person who is, because of paragraph (a), a spouse of a taxpayer;
and
(d) provisions that apply to a person who is unmarried do not
apply to a person who is, because of paragraph (a), a spouse of a
taxpayer.
In the arcane language of the Income Tax Act, that is
essentially saying that the definition of spouse and marriage for
the purposes of this section of the Income Tax Act, as affected
by the Rosenberg decision, are synonymous. I can only assume
that the House leader of the fifth party did not read the
relevant section of the statute because it makes it absolutely
clear that by redefining spouse the court has also indirectly
redefined marriage.
The hon. leader of the fifth party said that it is reasonable
for this parliament to discriminate in terms of the definition of
marriage; to discriminate positively and justifiably in
favour of marriage conceived as it has been throughout the
millennia as an institution consisting of members of opposite
sexes.
We are debating a very serious thing. The House leader of the
fifth party also said that he would rather have us discuss more
important issues. I cannot conceive of a more important issue
for members of this place to deliberate than whether or not
this parliament is maintaining the supremacy which properly
belongs to it by our constitutional history.
In this respect I will quote from Mr. Justice John McClung of
the Alberta appeals court. In the Vriend decision he said:
“When unelected judges choose to legislate, parliamentary
checks, balances and conventions are simply shelved. Yet those
cornerstones took centuries to assemble. They came at great
cost. Our constitutional heritage is but a calendar of their
acquisition, sometimes bloody, for both royal and commoner. All
of these formative resources stand suspended when rights restless
judges pitchfork their courts into the uncertain waters of
political debate”. I could not say it more eloquently.
I appeal to all members to think deeply about the implications
not just of this decision, but of courts that have begun to
regard themselves as legislators. We represent the people, the
judges do not.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of
the previous speaker and to the to and fro that went on between
himself and the hon. government member. I cannot help but
hearken back to the debate we had a short time ago on Bill C-37,
the Judges Act. Again we saw quite a vitriolic and sometimes
personal attack on judges themselves. So I worry that we digress
in this debate.
Once again we have a motion before the House which has a very
narrow topic, and yet Reform has chosen to broaden this issue.
It has taken a great, sweeping, alarmist approach to this issue.
Instead of taking the wrecking ball, attacking the judiciary and
telling Canadians that somehow this decision will cause democracy
to fall, what would the Reform Party put in place? What would it
suggest we do when it comes to limiting judges in their task?
Rather than suggesting we should tear that down, I wonder what
the Reform Party would put in its place.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, I reject the spurious
premise of the hon. member's comment.
1350
This motion speaks very clearly to two issues. First, the broad
issue of judicial activism; generally, that federal legislation
should not be amended or redrafted by judicial rulings. That is
a subject which is very worthy of debate. Second, it speaks to
the specific issue with respect to appealing the Rosenberg
decision. There are two issues at question in this motion. We
are not trying to do more than debate those two issues.
What would we do to restrain a hyperactive judiciary? To begin
with, we could adopt mechanisms of parliamentary review for the
nomination of justices so that we as parliamentarians, on behalf
of the Canadian people, can be assured, in a fully transparent
and public process, that the people who are taking positions on
the bench believe in the constitutional framework of our founders
and the parliamentary system.
We would like to have the ability as parliamentarians to
question proposed nominees to the bench. We also believe that
the courts should have the power to invalidate acts of
parliament, but not to rewrite them. This parliament should
maintain, as it has for hundreds of years, the ultimate power to
re-enact legislation which it believes is consistent with our
constitutional framework.
That is why the framers of the 1982 Constitution Act included
section 33, the notwithstanding clause, as the ultimate guarantor
of parliamentary supremacy and we ought not be afraid to use it
at the appropriate time.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I think about the Rosenberg decision I am reminded of
a personal situation. My mother was widowed just over two years
ago and her sister was just recently widowed. My mother and my
aunt could be living together in the very near future. I am
wondering if the government would extend the same reading to that
situation as it would to the definition of same sex benefits.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot speak
for the government. That is the purpose of the motion.
This is a very important case and we would like clarification
and answers to questions such as that. We will not get them
until this judgment has run its course, which is why it must be
appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Then this parliament
can revisit the issue.
There are far more questions than there are answers. This
government has said in the past that its position is to maintain
the current traditional definition of spouse and spousal
benefits. Will it or will it not do that? That is the question
before this House today. I hope that we soon get an answer from
the justice minister.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against this
motion for two reasons. The first is that it offends the
fundamental principles of democracy. Second, it is in fact a
very discriminatory motion because it completely goes against all
Canadian principles of equality.
I want to speak first to the issue of how it offends the
principles of democracy. The balance in a democracy between an
elected body like the House of Commons and the supreme court of
the land or the courts of the land is to find a way in which
justice can be served through the law and the interpretation of
the law. That is especially true in our country right now.
We have to look at the charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act
and all of the legislation that has come about which talks to the
equality of persons and recognizes the fundamental distinction
that people are not all the same. Equality is not about treating
people the same. Equality is the fundamental bedrock on which
Canadian society has been built. It is one of the common values
which we all believe in as Canadians, regardless of where we
live, where we come from or what colour we are.
It is really important to recognize in the Canadian Human Rights
Act and in our charter that when we speak of equality we speak of
equality as recognizing the diversity of people. That is what
this motion is trying to undo.
If in this democracy parliament undermined the decisions of the
supreme court of our country, decisions that are based on our
Constitution and fundamental justice, then we would have removed
democracy from Canada and replaced it with dictatorships.
1355
It is in countries where the governments of the land and the
parliaments of the land seek to override fundamental justice and
the law that dictatorships occur. Is this what the hon. members,
when they bring this motion forward, are trying to suggest?
Let us look to the past when governments have sought to muzzle
the courts of their land. Let us look at the more recent example
of South Africa where governments set about making laws that were
fundamentally discriminatory to the people of that country. They
gave rights only to certain people and took them away from
others. These rights included: the right to walk down the
street; the right to be out after dark in any of the cities of
South Africa; the right to work; the right to education; and the
right to interracial marriage. In South Africa the government of
the day, through its parliament, decided that if there was an
interracial marriage in South Africa it was not legal in the eyes
of the law.
Is that what we are trying to do? Are we saying that
governments are always right, that houses of parliament are
always right and that they alone have the right to decide how our
people will live and what is essential to fundamental justice and
equality in our country? Is that what we are trying to do? Are
we trying to undo democracy? Do we want Canada to become a
dictatorship? That is exactly what the fundamental principle of
this motion is about. It is about dictatorship. It is about
what we call the tyranny of the majority.
The members of that party have always talked about how they
represent the people. Do they represent only one type of people,
or do they represent all Canadians, including gay Canadians,
lesbian Canadians, black Canadians, Canadians of different
religions, Canadians who live in isolated areas of this country,
Canadians who cannot find work in the maritimes, and Canadians
who are aboriginal? Are Reform members suggesting that they
represent all of these people? Because members of the Reform
Party have stood up in the House day after day and have slam
dunked Canadians who do not belong to the group which they say
they represent, the grassroots.
It offends me, Madam Speaker, to have to stand here to debate a
motion that is so fundamentally retrogressive and so distasteful.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to call you Madam
Speaker, but I did not notice that you had come into the Chamber.
The Speaker: These robes sometimes fool people when they
look at me, but I am still Mr. Speaker.
At this point I think we are at just the right spot to let you
have a little rest. You can come back full steam after question
period and we look forward to hearing from you again. But it is
almost 2 p.m., so we will proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AYDEN BYLE DIABETES RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to the devoted community spirit of one
of my constituents.
Mr. Ayden Byle, an individual from the north end of
Huron—Bruce, has undertaken to establish the Ayden Byle Diabetes
Research Foundation.
This organization, under the direction of Ayden's father,
Marshall Byle, will collect public and corporate donations for
diabetes research.
In addition to the creation of this foundation and in an effort
to drum up awareness for the cause, Ayden has recently devised
the Canada challenge.
The Canada challenge is a simple concept. Ayden challenges
Canadians from coast to coast to coast to contribute financially
to the eradication of this terrible disease.
To assist in achieving this goal, starting June 1 Ayden is
running across Canada in an effort to raise money and awareness
for diabetes research. His journey began on the west coast and
is expected to end later this summer.
I would encourage all of my hon. colleagues to take note of this
effort and to join with me in wishing Ayden Byle our best wishes
for every success.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
hepatitis C issue has been kind of tough on the Liberal
government.
We went through, with Krever, shredded documents. We went
through fighting in court. We went through a withholding of
cabinet proceedings.
Finally, when we got the Krever presentation, I thought the
battle was over. But the government decided to compensate only a
small proportion of the victims.
It says it is because the ALT test was not available, available
to me in 1970 in my practice for hepatitis. It was not available
because federal regulators chose not to use it for that purpose.
The decision was a decision made by regulators.
1400
For the victims, all they want is fairness and those victims are
going to go to every single event this summer of Liberal
politicians, to the parades, to the ribbon cuttings, to the
speeches, everything that they do. They are going to wave a
little flag that says “hepatitis C, don't forget us”.
I would not want to be in that position. I would not want to go
through the long hot summer of the Liberals on hepatitis—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Abitibi.
* * *
[Translation]
VAL D'OR KIWANIS CLUB
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Val d'Or
Kiwanis club came into being on September 17, 1947. Since its
inception, this club has had but one goal: to help young people.
The Kiwanis club is involved primarily in the Atom and Pee Wee
levels of minor hockey. Through the exceptional devotion of its
members, the club has helped in other community ventures in Val
d'Or and piloted the project to erect the statue of the miner in
carré Lapointe.
In 1976, Kiwanis members joined with volunteers to establish the
committee to fund a second rink.
The city of Val d'Or is now calling the building the Kiwanis
arena.
The hundreds of volunteers and donors who tirelessly support the
members of the Kiwanis club and their work deserve our
recognition. Today more than ever the commitment, camaraderie
and pride of our members mean successful projects for young
people.
* * *
[English]
MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
at the 1996 Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention we
heard the Prime Minister acknowledging that it was time to
recognize the municipal governments in their own right.
At the FCM meeting in Regina today the Prime Minister said
nothing about the role of municipalities. If he really wants to
connect with Canadians let him listen to municipal concerns
brought on by federal funding cuts and downloading of services.
The Prime Minister talks about the information highway.
Municipalities are stuck figuring out ways to pay for streets and
roads. Municipalities already have the smarts. What they need is
a voice and a seat at the table.
Let the government heed section 5 of Reform's new Canada act:
“The Government of Canada hereby recognizes municipal
governments as the first level of government in Canada, and
agrees to ensure municipal government representation at
federal-provincial conferences dealing with the provision and
financing of essential services.
* * *
CANCER
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was the 11th annual national cancer survivors day in
North America. Events were held across the country to raise
awareness of this day, this disease and to celebrate the courage
of the survivors.
I think what is most important to remember is that since 1969
cancer mortality rates have been steadily declining for Canadian
men and women in all age groups under 60. Even though one in
three people will get cancer, 50% of those will survive.
National cancer survivors day is about recognizing those who
have survived as well as their families, friends and care givers.
We must also remember the volunteers and researchers who have
helped make their survival possible.
Through organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society cancer
patients have learned to articulate their concerns and through
communication with their physicians and other health care workers
they have helped us identify the gaps in the health care system
and have helped medical professionals reorganize our priorities
so that we can move toward a more patient centred approach.
I welcome this opportunity to thank and congratulate everyone on
their outstanding achievements and effort.
* * *
AJAX HOME WEEK
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the town of Ajax in my riding has a special asset, the
volunteers. Where once there were hundreds, today there are
thousands.
After starting in 1971, Ajax now celebrates its 28th annual home
week through the efforts of volunteers and service and community
minded organizations. The theme of this year's home week is
“celebrate being a kid”. Events include athletes in action,
beach volleyball, lakeside kiddy carnival, the optimists family
picnic and fun fair, culminating in a giant fireworks display.
The original goals of Ajax home week are still very much in
place. They are to say thank you to the wonderful people Ajax, to
provide activities for everyone regardless of gender, religion,
race, age or personal means, to promote the town of Ajax which so
many call home and to encourage former Ajax residents to return
to Ajax for a visit.
* * *
CANPASS
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday my riding of Niagara Falls saw the launching of
CANPASS, the whirlpool bridge dedicated commuter crossing.
The new smart border, on which Revenue Canada has been working
for some time, will benefit the residents of Canada, all the
travellers using the Niagara border crossings and Niagara Falls
as a whole.
1405
The CANPASS program expedites the clearance of preapproved low
risk travellers into Canada and has been made possible by a
fruitful partnership between the federal government and the
public sector.
I thank the local customs officers who have played such a major
role in the development of the operating procedure specific to
the CANPASS whirpool initiative. Canada Customs has a long
history of providing an effective and professional customs
service, another example of how the Liberal government is helping
to ensure that Canada has safe streets and safe communities.
* * *
[Translation]
OLIVAR ASSELIN
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to pay tribute to one of Quebec's finest journalists,
Olivar Asselin.
A strong nationalist, a brilliant and sarcastic satirist, he
had, throughout his career, a profound impact on French
Canadians in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Mr. Asselin ardently defended the rights of Franco-Ontarians. He
was one of the pillars of the movement by Ontario francophones
to fight the ignoble Regulation 17, along with Marie
Gérin-Lajoie—mother and daughter.
Even today, many Quebec journalists claim with pride to belong
to the Asselin school, and it is not just by chance that the
grand prize for journalism offered by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste
society of Montreal bears the name Olivar Asselin.
In closing, I would like to pay tribute to the work of Hélène
Pelletier-Baillergeon, who with great talent paid homage in her
biography of him to a legend of Quebec journalism, and I look
forward to reading the second volume of this biography in the
near future.
* * *
[English]
AUTO PACT
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auto
pact is the most successful trade deal Canada has ever signed and
the most beneficial for Canadians.
Member companies employ in well paying full time jobs more than
65,000 workers. The suppliers of auto parts employ another
90,000 Canadians.
In 1996 auto pact companies exported vehicles totalling $45
billion. Last year Canada enjoyed a trade surplus of $13.5
billion with the United States. The automotive sector is
Canada's number one export industry.
In my riding of Oakville the Ford Motor Company of Canada has
its head office. Since 1990 Ford has invested almost $6 billion
in production facilities in Canada. This large investment is
concrete evidence of Ford's commitment to Canada
With worldwide overcapacity in the automotive industry looming
and with mergers already announced, now is not the time to change
our finished vehicle tariff regime and threaten the auto pact.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there are seven vacancies in the upper house, one in Nova Scotia,
one in Newfoundland, one in Manitoba and four in Ontario. The
Prime Minister's phone must be ringing off the wall with Liberal
hacks trying to collect political on IOUs.
There must be plethora of good Liberals who have organized a
dinner, delivered a brochure or, most important, cut a cheque to
the party who have not received a supreme court seat or an
appointment to the IRB or the parole board.
The Prime Minister has surpassed Brian Mulroney's levels of
patronage, travel and of course closure. But there is one that
Mr. Mulroney did that the Prime Minister has not done and that is
appoint Canada's first and only elected senator, Reformer Stan
Waters.
The Prime Minister is renowned for ignoring the will of
Canadians. He has the opportunity to follow through on his
promise to reform the Senate or he can continue to appoint
Liberal hacks. Whatever the Prime Minister decides there is one
thing for certain. His announcement will take place after the
House rises because the Prime Minister cannot take the heat
because he will not elect those seats.
* * *
REFORM PARTY
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Edmonton—Strathcona
journeyed to Quebec City along with his close and personal
Blocquistes friends. Once there he waxed eloquently in French
about how the Reform had a new plan, une troisième voie, that
will attract all sorts of Quebeckers to the Reform Party.
Just how interested would Quebeckers be in Reform's way of
thinking if they knew that just two days after visit to Quebec
that same member proposed a motion to eliminate the budget of the
office of the commissioner of official languages?
The answer is that Quebeckers have no interest in Reform's plan
to dismantle French language services within the federal
government. That is why Reform will continue to fail miserably
in all its attempts to win favour in Quebec no matter how many
separatists it befriends.
* * *
1410
OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, June 8 marks the international day of the oceans. Coming
from Nova Scotia, this day is very special indeed.
The ocean represents 75% of the earth's surface and unfortunately
the human race and our government are systematically trying to
destroy this very precious resource. By pollution, dumping of
nuclear waste, overfishing and sloppy oil and gas explorations
their track record is not very good.
Even today many of our fish stocks are in peril and the
livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people who live along
coastal communities are in jeopardy. I urge this government and
all nations to take action now to protect our oceans so that
future generations may benefit from what our seas have to offer.
* * *
OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased to remind my colleagues and all Canadians that today is
oceans day. Since 1992 countries from around the world have
observed this date as oceans day in order to celebrate one of our
world's finest resources.
This year oceans day has a special significance because the
United Nations has declared 1998 the international year of the
ocean. Canada is celebrating with activities to bring awareness
of the importance of our oceans and the need to protect them.
To emphasize this importance the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans has undertaken a number of initiatives. One, start at the
Youth for the Oceans Foundation to promote youth leadership and
education concerning the oceans. Two, a national public
consultation process to develop a national oceans strategy for
Canada. Three, a public review of draft marine protected area
policy. Four, a national framework for establishing and managing
these areas under the Canada Oceans Act.
* * *
GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise today to mark the third anniversary of
the election of the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.
The accomplishments of this government are numerous: a 30% tax
cut to be fully implemented on July 1, a full six months ahead of
schedule; the largest 12 month job creation initiative in the
province's history with 265,000 net new jobs between February
1997 and February 1998; a balanced approach to the deficit will
see it eliminated by fiscal year 2000-2001; an economy which is
growing faster than any of the G-7 industrial countries.
Lately Mike Harris has been the victim of savage attacks by the
Prime Minister and his finance minister. The reality is they
just cannot accept that it is possible to cut taxes, reduce the
deficit and create jobs when your government is both progressive
and conservative.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Forum
jeunesse of the Bloc Quebecois yesterday organized a day of
reflection on globalization, which included an examination of
the multilateral agreement on investment.
The Bloc Quebecois, in agreement with the governments of Quebec
and a number of provinces, has already expressed serious
reservations over some aspects of the agreement.
All these young people from Quebec and others from elsewhere in
Canada are wondering and concerned about the effects of the MAI
on economic and cultural development for example.
In their opinion, the social responsibility of the
multinationals in the community is important too and was
regrettably put to one side in the MAI negotiations.
The Bloc Quebecois calls on the federal government to listen and
respond to the concerns of these young people, since they will
be taking over and building tomorrow's society.
* * *
[English]
YWCA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 15
years ago the YWCA of Peterborough, Victoria and Haliburton
established two crossroads centres for abused women and their
children. Since that time these shelters have given literally
thousands of women the courage to deal with violence, poverty and
oppression in their lives.
Our thanks to all those across Canada who work with shelters
like these. Our congratulations to all those women and children
who have used the shelters as a stepping stone to a better life.
Special congratulations to the YWCA of Peterborough, Victoria
and Haliburton. Happy anniversary, crossroads.
* * *
UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this week the Ukrainian Canadian community is commemorating the
65th anniversary of the 1932-33 manmade famine genocide in
Ukraine, engineered by soviet leader Joseph Stalin, in which some
7 million Ukrainians perished.
Soviet party leaders with the aid of military troops and secret
police units seized every last scrap of food. Whole villages
became a mass of corpses. Large parts of Ukraine were blockaded,
no food was allowed in, no people were allowed out. While guarded
warehouses were filled with grain, Ukrainian peasants were
beaten, arrested and even shot for trying to take the few
remaining kernels lying on the fields.
Their extermination was a matter of state policy.
1415
Food is still a favourite weapon with many authoritarian regimes
in the world today. It has been said that those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
We join today with members of the Ukrainian community and other
Canadians in remembering the atrocities of this crime against
humanity.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 11 last year the supreme court brought down
its ruling on Delgamuukw, the B.C. aboriginal land claims case.
In its decision the court vastly expanded the concept of
aboriginal title to the point where the B.C. first nations summit
has now claimed aboriginal title to all land and resources in
British Columbia.
My question is for the minister of Indian affairs. Who owns
British Columbia?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the
Opposition points out, it was December 11 of last year when the
supreme court made this important ruling.
The day after that I was in British Columbia meeting with first
nations, meeting with the province and meeting with the business
community to ensure that we were taking appropriate action so
that the decision of the supreme court was part and parcel of our
treaty making process.
I am glad to welcome the hon. member to the debate finally.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Delgamuukw decision has created economic uncertainty
in every sector of the British Columbia economy that requires
land or resources: mining, the fishery, ranching, agriculture and
tourism, all of them.
The decision has created a potential taxpayer liability of
literally tens of billions of dollars. These impacts alone are
big enough to cripple the British Columbia economy.
Why has the federal government done nothing concrete to address
or correct these impacts?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the most important
thing that we can do to achieve certainty in British Columbia is
to negotiate treaties. That is what we are doing.
I would point out that the Laurier Institute has identified that
the economy of B.C. will increase by 1% with the settling of
these treaties.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has had a treaty negotiating
process going in British Columbia for seven years and has not
produced one concrete treaty as a result.
Everything the Liberal government has done in British Columbia
on the land claims issue has made things worse rather than
better. Now Delgamuukw puts a legal caveat on every piece of
land in B.C. and the minister's excuses and inaction just make
things worse rather than better.
Will the minister of Indian affairs put an end to this
uncertainty by legislating a definition of aboriginal title which
addresses the interest of all British Columbians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in six months the best they
can come up with is a suggestion to legislate away aboriginal
rights. That is the approach of two centuries ago and it has not
found solutions.
The supreme court directs us to negotiate resolutions. That is
the approach we are taking and that is the best way to create
certainty in the province of British Columbia.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, six months
and the best the minister can say is that we are to continue to
follow a failed policy that has produced no results whatsoever.
British Columbia jobs are in jeopardy because of the
government's inaction following the Delgamuukw decision. The
province is in recession and agriculture, forestry and mining
investment are in decline. The citizens of B.C. need and want
jobs now and not another study.
What will the minister of Indian affairs do to guarantee B.C.
companies that their investments are secure?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the most important
parties in the discussions that we are having in the province of
British Columbia is the B.C. business community.
The solution to the issue of longstanding treaties and
negotiations is being undertaken now.
When the hon. member opposite talked about negotiation he was
down in my part of Ontario. What did he say we could do with the
likes of Ipperwash? Call in the army was the solution of that
party for the most important arrangements we must make with
aboriginal people in Canada.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
ignores the facts.
Seven years and they have not produced one agreement in British
Columbia. At that rate it will take decades, even centuries, to
resolve all of them.
1420
In the meantime land claims past, present and future are all
affected by the Delgamuukw decision: logging in New Brunswick,
land claims in Ontario, mining in Labrador, ranching in Alberta,
forestry in British Columbia and power plants in Quebec.
Why does the minister not legislate a workable and fair
definition of the term aboriginal title?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be fair. The fact
that the federal government can unilaterally legislate a solution
here is absolutely preposterous. There are parties that have to
be at the negotiating table which all have a view on how we make
progress. We are there.
On May 12 an editorial in the Financial Post stated:
Minister Stewart and her provincial counterparts are on the right
track in seeking a fresh start to making deals.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Healthcare Association strongly condemned the federal
government for its drastic cuts to the funding of health
services in Canada.
The association even said that Ottawa's cuts have led to the
current crisis in the health care sector.
Given the requests made from all sides, how can the Deputy Prime
Minister justify the federal government's continuous refusal to
reallocate money to health, considering that health care
services all over Canada have a great need for such funds?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
recently increased transfers to the provinces. We increased them
to $12.5 billion annually, as recommended by the national forum
on health, two years ago.
In so doing, we acted responsibly to ensure the future of our
public health care system.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
just so happens that the national forum on health is condemning
this government, which would have us believe that it increased
transfers by $6 billion, when it in fact cut $42 billion instead
of $48 billion. This is the reality.
I ask the minister: Given the anticipated surplus of $6 billion,
is it not time to invest money in health care, considering that
the $2 billion that was cut in Quebec alone is equivalent to
shutting down all the hospitals in Montreal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
said, we have already increased transfers.
However, let us not forget that health is a shared jurisdiction
between the federal government and the provinces. The provinces
must do their part. Minister Rochon and the Bouchard government
acted in such a way as to produce unfortunate results in Quebec.
It is the province's responsibility.
We intend to assume our responsibilities as regards transfers,
and we have already increased these transfers.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Healthcare
Association says that the Canadian public has lost confidence in
the health system because of the federal government's huge cuts
to provincial transfer payments.
With a surplus of $6 billion, should the federal government not
be making it a priority to reduce the cuts it has imposed on the
provinces in order to alleviate the terrible pressure it has
created on the health system throughout Canada?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provinces have benefited
greatly from lower interest rates, equalization payments and so
on, despite the cuts.
Bernard Landry had the following to say, and I quote “We must
admit that we feel we must do our share so that the Canada we
have helped to put in debt can eliminate that debt”. So said
Mr. Landry in the National Assembly.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite
everything he has just said, will the minister admit that he has
cut payments to Quebec by an amount equivalent to the salaries
of all nurses for one year?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is apparently unaware of the fact that the federal
government transfers almost $28 billion annually to the
provinces for such things as health care.
This is a responsibility that is shared by the two levels of
government, both federal and provincial.
As I said, we intend to fulfil our responsibilities as the
federal government, and we have already taken action to ensure
the future of our health care system.
* * *
1425
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
When it comes to nuclear proliferation Canada is beginning to
look like a nuclear typhoid Mary or Johnny H-Bomb seed as we send
our Candu reactors over the planet to aid and abet the nuclear
arms race.
Why did the government allow the Minister of Finance to sign the
financial arrangements with China and Turkey without proper
departmental review? When will the government reconsider its
almost maniacal commitment to the export of Candu reactors?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to say that there was not any financial
review is simply inaccurate.
The Government of Canada through cabinet obviously gave broad
mandate to the negotiations, but when it comes to specifically
looking at the financing proposal that is handled by the Export
Development Corporation, a crown corporation. When the specifics
of the contract are looked at that is also done by AECL.
The Government of Canada gave broad directions and guidelines.
The specifics both on financing and contracting have been handled
by the two crown corporations, which is how they were acted upon
from the start of the AECL program.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is assuming that the minister would defend this lack
of due diligence on the part of the government in this matter.
The other problem is the growing appearance of Canada as a
hypocrite when it comes to the whole question.
The Speaker: I encourage the hon. member not to use that
word.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have
this group called the Candu owners groups which is now doing in
India, Pakistan and other countries what the government
self-righteously claims it is no longer doing.
When will the government recall this Candu owners group that is
aiding and abetting the nuclear arms race and not just recall our
ambassadors? When will we get these people out of these nuclear
arms programs in those countries?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is totally
wrong. Canada is not aiding and abetting in any way the military
use of atomic power.
After the Chernobyl disaster it was agreed that it would be
wise, in the interest of safety of the civilian populations in
the countries involved, to make available non-proprietary
publicly known information with respect to nuclear safety to help
ensure that the reactors originally supplied for peaceful
purposes would be safe. The lessons from the Chernobyl situation
would be applied in these circumstances.
We are not supporting military uses or expansion of nuclear
power in these countries or—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week
my party asked the government whether Canadian foreign policy
was for sale.
According to media reports, Canadian nuclear technicians were
still at work in India and Pakistan. This is clear proof that
Canadian foreign policy is indeed up for sale.
When will these technicians be called back home to lessen the
tensions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have just said, we made the decision, after the Chernobyl
disaster in the Ukraine, to make available to countries such as
India and Pakistan public information to help them maintain
these reactors and other equipment in a safe manner.
The exchange of such information is in the best interests of the
population of these countries, but we do not have any program of
co-operation to assist in the expansion of use of these powers in
any way—
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Deputy
Prime Minister. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.
[English]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government deludes itself that Canada did not help India and
Pakistan make nuclear bombs. The facts clearly indicate that
Canadian technology did and continues to help make nuclear bombs
for India, Pakistan and China.
Will the government continue to pretend that Canada played no
part in last month's nuclear tests or will it haul our
technicians out of that region immediately?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has made insinuations that are not
supported by any facts so far available.
Canada has not played any role in assisting India and Pakistan
in carrying out their recent nuclear tests. We have not had a
program with respect to nuclear co-operation with India and
Pakistan since 1976.
The only thing that has happened is that to help maintain the
safety of the power reactors for peaceful purposes, we have made
available publicly known non-proprietary information. It is to
help ensure the maintenance from a safety point of view of the
reactors we supplied. I do not know why the hon. member would
want to oppose that and put at risk—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cariboo—Chilcotin.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Delgamuukw decision is wreaking economic havoc in
Cariboo—Chilcotin. In Williams Lake an approved development is
being shut down in mid-construction. In the Seton Valley
provincially approved logging sites are being told to close. In
Lillooet a veneer plant employing nearly 200 people is seriously
threatened with closure. Ranchers are being told by aboriginal
people that they do not own the lands they have deeds to.
What is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
doing now to defuse this powder keg?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that there
is nothing being recommended by the opposition that will bring
certainty to the issues in British Columbia. Rather, its
suggestion that there is some unilateral legislation that will
solve issues of aboriginal rights is preposterous. It is a
recipe for confrontation which is not what we need in British
Columbia.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister does not get it. The supreme court makes
decisions in Ottawa but the effects are felt back home. Some
First Nations have told ranchers that they no longer own their
ranches and that they had better turn over the property without a
fight. Investors are being told not to invest a nickel in
British Columbia. The situation is getting tense.
My constituents demand a straight answer. What is she going to
do to stop the uncertainty before B.C. faces the long summer of
unrest?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary it is the
opposition members that just do not get it. Perhaps they should
read the supreme court decision which said that the solution to
reconciling aboriginal rights in modern times is found at the
negotiation table. What Reformers do is focus on fearmongering,
on scaremongering, on looking for a scapegoat.
The answer is found at the table where all the parties, the
First Nations, the province, the federal government, business and
the people of British Columbia, support peaceful negotiated
resolutions.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health has just told two giant whoppers.
The first is that health was a shared jurisdiction. As far as I
know, it has always come exclusively under provincial
jurisdiction.
The second is that the federal government never cut transfer
payments. He has just said it increased them.
How does the Minister of Health expect to maintain any
credibility with such nonsense, when transfer payments, which
were $678 per person—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
Minister of Health has the floor.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first,
the federal government is responsible for interpreting and
strengthening the Canada Health Act. That is the first thing. We
intend to honour federal jurisdiction and federal
responsibility.
Second, the national forum on health, a body independent of the
government, suggested the government increase transfers, and we
did.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: It is cutting less.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this Minister
of Health has no compassion.
Does he realize that the cuts the government imposes every year
on Quebec in the area of health represent double the budget of
all the CLSCs in Quebec combined?
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fact is we increased the transfers, but the Government of Quebec
must face the consequences of its own health policies. It is
the policies of the Bouchard government that have had this
effect on Quebec hospitals.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Allan Rock: We did our part. We fulfilled our
responsibilities, as always, with regard to transfers.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
continually deny their involvement in Pakistan's and India's
nuclear programs, yet today there are Canadian technologists over
there working in both countries. These Canadians are building the
nuclear program in both countries and they have been there for
years. Experts say that this technology is interchangeable
between domestic and military uses.
The facts speak for themselves. Why will this government not
start telling Canadians the truth?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could ask the hon. member the same question. Why is
he not using the truth in his questions?
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence whatsoever that the
technicians in question are helping either India or Pakistan with
their military programs. They are providing safety information
to maintain the civilian power reactors.
Why does the member oppose civilian safety in those countries?
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister totally misses the point. We have listened to AECL and
it has told us about the safeguards. None of us in our committee
are convinced that those will work. This kind of rhetoric might
work in a Liberal caucus but it will not work for Canadians. Why
does the government not come clean and tell Canadians where this
nuclear program is going?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are not carrying out a nuclear program with India and
Pakistan, but with respect to nuclear reactors that were supplied
before the program ended in 1976, we are in the light of the
views of the International Atomic Energy Association helping
provide information to make sure that these reactors are
maintained safely in the interests of civilian populations.
We are not having anything to do with the current military
programs of India and Pakistan. If the hon. member wants the
truth, why does he not put that truth in his questions?
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
This morning, members of the National Action Committee on the
Status of Women told parliamentarians of the difficulties
encountered by women's community organizations since the federal
government made substantial cuts to funding.
If the Deputy Prime Minister admits that the work being done by
women's groups is essential to the cause of equality in Canadian
society, what is he waiting for to come up with the $2 per woman
being requested?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact this government has
done more to advance the equality of women in this country than
any other government.
While equality is important to fund NGOs to bring about women's
equality, there are other things that we are also working on to
bring about women's equality. There are issues such as gender
based analysis which ensures that every single department
considers the impact on gender of all its policies and all its
legislation.
The fact is that in the last budget more was done to assist
women.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
government is doing so much for women, why is it maintaining
provisions that penalize pregnant women by limiting their access
to EI benefits, when it supported the objective of economic
equality for women in a unanimous vote on this issue in the
House of Commons on March 8, 1994?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the hon.
member's question because what this government has done with
regard to pregnancy benefits is that now, when women have time
off for pregnancy, we have increased that for up to five years. A
woman who takes pregnancy leave to look after her children can
have up to five years to access EI benefits, to get retraining to
go back into the labour force.
* * *
1440
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has just told the
House that AECL and EDC have all the responsibility for putting
together this nuclear reactor deal with China. He even went so
far as to say they did all the contract and all the financing.
He knows very well that the AECL and the EDC do not have the
authority to authorize a $1.5 billion loan guarantee to finance
those.
How on earth could this government give that loan guarantee?
How could the finance minister give a loan guarantee without even
looking at the contracts or the details of the sale? How could he
do that?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the earlier question the implication
was left that there was no financial due diligence. What I said
to the member and to the House was that there was precisely that,
a financial due diligence and it was carried out by the exporting
arm of the Export Development Corporation.
Months before the contract the Government of Canada through
cabinet gave the wide parameters of directions to both EDC and
AECL. This was followed in the Candu sales to China and the
previous Candu sales as well.
Also it should be noted that in China since 1979 there have been
over 250 transactions worth $5 billion and there have been no
liabilities thus far.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, let us stay with the point of the issue. The fact
is that the Minister of Finance and the former minister of
defence signed off and agreed to a $1.5 billion loan guarantee
for the sale of these nuclear reactors when their own department
officials gave sworn affidavits that the details of those
contracts never reached the minister's department.
I ask the minister, why did the finance minister and this
cabinet approve a $1.5 billion loan guarantee to China for the
reactors without first reviewing the arrangements?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was the Government of Canada that gave
those wide parameter views and directives. What the officials
also said and tabled to the court is that the financial review
specifically has always been conducted by both AECL and EDC. They
have worked in concert with the Government of Canada.
With respect to the specific financial due diligence, it is not
the task of the departments of finance, trade or foreign affairs.
It is that of the exporting arm which is the Export Development
Corporation.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Minister of Transport admitted that the purpose of the
government's air route decisions was to favour Canadian so that
it could develop and be competitive with Air Canada.
Given that it took 25 years for the Liberal government to admit
that the decisions of the 1970s were harmful to the development
of the Montreal airport, must we now wait for the irreparable to
happen before the government understands that, by blocking the
development of Air Canada, it is blocking the economic
development of Montreal generally?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made
it abundantly clear to the hon. member opposite when he said this
government relies on a two airline policy in this country because
a two airline policy fosters competition and competition is
healthy for the air travelling public in this country.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
This morning, the Canadian government announced its
participation in phase III of the St. Lawrence River Action
Plan. This important project involves major investments in
Quebec.
Could the minister tell us more about the nature and purpose of
the investments to be made under the plan?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure this morning in
Montreal to announce the third phase of the St. Lawrence action
plan. This is one of five regional environmental programs across
the country that encourage improved health of our ecological
systems and human health but which also are very important
because they engage Canadians at the grassroots level.
In the last two phases a $150 million investment of Canada
brought in more than $1 billion of activity to serve the St.
Lawrence River. The phase that we introduced today will address
agricultural activities, industrial activities, navigation and
shipping.
We expect to have many, many environmental benefits, including
greater protection for species at risk, like the beluga.
* * *
1445
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we finally
have admitted in writing what federal bureaucrats say about the
hepatitis C compensation package, and I quote: “The federal
package does not meet recommendations set out by Krever”.
Will the health minister admit finally what all Canadians know,
that his recommendations just simply ignored Krever completely?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is true that the Krever report recommended that the provinces
and territories pay compensation.
This government felt that it should take a leadership role, as
always, and pull the provinces together to produce a consensus to
compensate 22,000 people. That is what we did.
As for the rest, the member will remember that there is a
working group in place, a process to examine options, and perhaps
he should let that process conclude so that we understand where
we go from there.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we were
told a few minutes ago, from the website of the health minister,
the following statement: “We accept the Krever conclusions in
their entirety and without reservation”. Those two things do
not square.
Will the minister delete that phrase from the website and put in
the real phrase, that the recommendations do not meet what Krever
set out at all?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
whoever led the member to the website should take him through it
with greater care.
Of course we accept the conclusions, all of the conclusions. He
went through all the facts and he put forward conclusions which
are clearly correct.
When it came to recommendations, it was up to governments to
decide where to go from the Krever report.
As the member knows, the governments reached a consensus among
all provinces to compensate 22,000. As to the rest, let us wait
for the process involving the officials to conclude and then we
will go from there.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, cross-Canada deliberations on child custody and access
have become a forum for the taunting and intimidation of women
who report domestic abuse.
Women have been booed and hissed and the existence of violence
against women has been denied.
When I attended one of those hearings I was reminded of 1982
when Margaret Mitchell was laughed at in the House for raising
the issue of violence against women.
I want to ask the minister responsible for the status of women
if she shares our concerns and if she is prepared to express her
concern today and set the record straight with respect to
violence against women.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of violence against
women, whether it be in the home, in the workplace or in society
at large, is one of absolute concern to this government. It has
shown it by much of the legislation it has brought forward and
the programs it has established.
The concern that the member brings about is disrespect for
women. It is fundamentally important that we listen to all sides
of this debate, and that we listen to all with respect, so we can
learn and the committee can make appropriate recommendations
based on that respectful listening.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important for the minister responsible for
the status of women to present very clearly the government's
position with respect to violence against women and for that to
be articulated very precisely.
The government is attacking women's equality rights by imposing
impossibly restrictive funding guidelines and by not countering
views that turn back the clock 20 years.
Will the minister today give the House an assurance that she
will help underfunded equality seeking organizations to counter
the outrageous propaganda that seeks to deny violence against
women?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this country is one of the
few countries in the world that funds NGOs. There are not very
many countries which do that. We will continue to do that. It
is absolutely and fundamentally important that women's
organizations be able to speak to government, to hold a mirror up
to us to let us know what are the realities of women's lives. We
intend to continue to fund that.
We are not denying any organization that is committed to the
equality of women access to funding. Once they apply, we will
fund them.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government's chief information officer, Mr. Paul Rummell, quit
his job over the weekend to move to the private sector. This
move comes in the middle of the millennium bug battle, the
largest technology project Canada's government has ever seen.
Mr. Rummell would have had to prepare a report on the status of
the project for his successor. Will the Prime Minister release
this report to the public?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Rummell has served the government well. He came from the
private sector and was here on a temporary contract.
He has now finished his assignment. The year 2000 czar will now
be in the public service, Mr. Guy McKenzie, who is a civil
servant with an irreproachable past. He has shown that he has
the qualities necessary to make a success of the endeavour.
1450
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the rats are
fleeing the ship. Mr. Rummell left to avoid being the
government's scapegoat when it ends up losing the race against
the clock.
The millennium bug is a serious problem and the government needs
to get it together within its ranks.
My question again is for the Prime Minister. Will he commit
today to take personal responsibility and ownership when, 561
days and 9 hours from now, his government proves to be
inadequately prepared for the next millennium?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): The
responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for dealing with the problem of the
year 2000 bug has been given by the Prime Minister to Treasury
Board. We have put together a year 2000 project office that at
present has already done two surveys of the various federal
departments and we are well on our way to being able to deal with
the problem. The appointment of a first class official will help
us take care of it.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development.
Can the secretary of state tell us what the federal government
is doing to help young Canadians become active participants in
the knowledge based economy?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, besides providing a situation whereby Canada will be
the most connected nation in the world by the year 2000, there is
one particular initiative that needs to be mentioned. The
Industry Canada SchoolNet digital collections program has already
awarded 280 contracts, creating 1,400 jobs for young Canadians in
order to increase Canadian content on the information highway in
a significant kind of way, in the multimedia area and in
entrepreneurship.
As well, for our aboriginal Canadians, on June 2 I announced a
project for aboriginals that will be on the Internet, creating
200 jobs, giving them opportunities to be involved in
entrepreneurship and giving us an opportunity to appreciate even
more than we do our aboriginal—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a long
winded press release might have done just as well.
The minister responsible for Newfoundland is dumping 70 million
Canadian tax dollars into the environmental mess at the former
Argentia naval base. He is spinning it as a make-work project,
just like the fishery, just like the Sydney tar ponds, just like
TAGS; short term fixes ignoring the underlying problems of
Atlantic Canada.
The Americans have committed to pay for the clean-up of their
military bases in Newfoundland. Why will the minister not send
the bill to Bill?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board
approved a financial plan to clean up the Argentia site where
American arms were left. The external affairs department is
negotiating with the American government for a refund.
In the meantime we are cleaning up the environment and at the
same time we are creating jobs in Newfoundland and in Atlantic
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
YEAR 2000 COMPUTERS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In a unanimous report tabled May 14, the Standing Committee on
Industry recommended that there be a complete tax write-off of
new computers purchased by SMBs to replace those that are not
Year 2000 ready.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to follow up on this
tax measure by the end of the session so that SMBs may make the
necessary adjustments as rapidly as possible?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are considering the situation very seriously. I would be very
pleased to receive additional information to be able to give a
more elaborate response to my hon. colleague as soon as
possible.
* * *
[English]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
largest women's organization, the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women, has no funding to carry out the work of
promoting justice and equality for women in Canada.
1455
New funding guidelines are threatening the viability of women's
organizations.
Will the minister responsible for the status of women ensure
that her government spends at least $2 per woman and girl in
Canada on women's equality and drop the new funding guidelines
that are causing such unnecessary grief for women?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
referring to the fact that the national action committee has not
received funding yet from this government.
If the national action committee applies for funding it will be
considered, but it has not yet applied.
Secondly, most of the large national organizations that are
committed to working toward women's equality have already
received their funding under the new guidelines.
I therefore appeal to the national action committee to apply.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 1998 the minister of immigration
released a report on the number of ministerial permits issued in
the year 1997. Of 4,059 ministerial permits issued, 37% were for
individuals who were criminally inadmissible to Canada, 395 of
the permits were issued for individuals who had committed serious
offences including assault, sexual assault, and 79 had committed
those offences within the last five years.
Can the minister explain why it is her government is assisting
criminals to enter the country when we should be trying to keep
them out?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, this information is not news. As the hon. member knows, the
minister tabled this information in the House of Commons on April
2. The hon. member did not have to wait for it to be in the news
to make a point of it.
Nonetheless, over the last five years the number of permits
issued has decreased by 75%, from 16,000 per year to 4,000. We
have changed it considerably. A permit can be revoked at any
time. Permits are given for many different reasons, such as
temporary work permits.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue.
As a member of parliament I have often been consulted by people
in my riding to address Revenue Canada issues which are perceived
as unfair to my constituents.
Under the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will I still be able
to assist my constituents with their concerns?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada is
committed to fairness in dealing with all taxpayers, individuals
and corporations, and that will continue. That is why there is a
taxpayer declaration of rights and a fairness principle. Both of
these policies will continue with the agency.
All members of parliament, with the consent of their taxpayers,
will have exactly the same revenue access to help their
constituents as they now have. That also applies to all
taxpayers in this country.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government is nowhere near ready for the year 2000 or the fixing
of the millennium bug. Today we recognize how quickly the ship
is sinking.
The chief officer who is in charge of this himself said not long
ago “We're increasingly nervous each day as we go along. We've
never not been nervous about this issue—”.
How can the government continue to give the assurance that we
will solve the year 2000 problem when its captain is leaving the
ship?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, Mr. Rummell, who was the chief of information
technology, was borrowed temporarily from the private sector
under contract. He has now finished his assignment and will be
replaced soon.
In the meantime, the person in charge of the year 2000 office
will be a civil servant, Mr. Guy McKenzie, who has a lot of
experience in this field. He also has the ability to help us
solve our problems in time for the year 2000.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
At this very moment, on the Magdalen Islands, 300 people are
demonstrating in favour of substantial support measures for
fishers and fishery workers when TAGS comes to an end.
Will the minister admit that this demonstration is a further
indication that fishery workers are very worried about what
awaits them and that they want from the federal government a
response to all their demands as quickly as possible?
1500
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Human
Resources Development Canada is now in a consultation process
with the provinces. We are looking at a couple of elements, a
couple of directions.
Once we finish that consultation with the provinces we will be
going to the final phase of looking at alternatives and proposals
that we will put to people. From there we will do like we did
when the crisis first started, we will make sure we do what is
right for the people who need our help.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in an
effort to provide access for students to post-secondary
education, recognizing the need to prepare for the knowledge
based economy of the 21st century, the province of British
Columbia has frozen tuition fees for the past three years. It is
now concerned that students from other provinces will move into
that province to take advantage of these more reasonable levels
of tuition fees.
Will the government take leadership on this issue and bring
together the ministers responsible for post-secondary education
and attempt to standardize fee schedules across the country so
that Canadians, no matter where they live, will be able to access
post-secondary education?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
is very concerned about the question of access to education. This
is why we have acted so strongly. This is why we brought in the
millennium scholarship fund. This is why we have the RESPs and
this is why we have introduced the Canada educational savings
grant where we will actually top up individual contributions in
order to make access an issue.
This is why we have reformed the Canada student loans program.
We have allowed a deferral of interest for up to 54 weeks after
graduating. We will make sure that a person does not have to pay
back more than 15% of their income in any one year. This is why
we brought in the Canada study grant—
The Speaker: That brings to a close question period.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.
In the course of asking my question, at one point I referred to
the concern that Canada was being seen as a hypocrite and at that
point Mr. Speaker rose from his chair and cautioned me with
respect to the use of language.
I understand the rule against calling a person a hypocrite, but
my understanding of the rules is that they do not prohibit me
from expressing a concern that my country is being seen as a
hypocrite because of particular actions the government is taking.
In my judgement that is perfectly within the bounds of
parliamentary language and I think the admonition was
unwarranted.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona is a very experienced member of the House and
very knowledgeable in the practices of the House. What he says
is quite correct in terms of the use of the word hypocrite.
I have no doubt that it is wrong to call an hon. member a
hypocrite directly, but using it in a more general sense is not
unparliamentary. However, I am sure the hon. member knows also
that during question period particularly and at other times in
the House words are used which may sometimes cause disorder.
1505
I suspect that the admonition the hon. member received by the
Speaker was delivered on the basis that he believed the hon.
member's words might cause disorder. While they may have been
parliamentary in the strict sense, the cause for disorder is
always something a Speaker has to bear in mind when making a
ruling.
The hon. member has stated the position correctly. I am sure
there was not an admonition intended of him for using the word in
the sense that it was an improper use of the word. I think the
admonition dealt with the question of disorder in the House.
Accordingly, I hope the hon. member will accept that in good
grace.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the reason the use of the
word tends to cause disorder is that people think it is out of
order when it is not. To the extent that the appearance of a
word being out of order when it is not is reinforced by the
Chair, that in itself contributes to disorder the next time the
word is used properly.
The Deputy Speaker: I hope the statement the Chair just
made will clarify the situation for all hon. members.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's responses to 49
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (REMEDIAL AND DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES) ACT
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-44, an act to authorize remedial and
disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain
administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other
acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read
the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-419, an act to amend the National Parks Act
and other acts in consequence thereof (Canada Parks).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private
member's bill, the enactment of which amends the National Parks
Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and replaces the term
national park with the term Canada park.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in this august Chamber, this edifice to Canada's
confederation, this esteemed House that welcomed the enjoinment
of Newfoundland in 1949, this venerated Chamber that will soon
usher in Nunavut as a partner as well.
I am humbled to serve the constituents of Edmonton East and
proud to be Canadian as I discharge my duties today by presenting
a petition from citizens across Canada, but most notably from the
numbers from the province of Quebec.
The petition calls for the Prime Minister and Canada to declare
that Canada is indivisible and that this state is presently
alterable only by all citizens of Canada and their Government of
Canada.
I concur.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows it is
quite wrong for him to indicate his concurrence or otherwise in
respect of a petition he presents. I hope he will contain
himself within the rules.
1510
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including those from my own riding of Mississauga South. The
petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
our police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties.
Often when one of them is killed in the line of duty the
employment benefits do not provide sufficient compensation to
their surviving families. Also, the public mourns the loss of
our public safety officers killed in the line of duty and wishes
to support in a tangible way the surviving families in their time
of need.
The petitioners therefore call on parliament to establish a
public safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of
families of public safety officers including police officers and
firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on
behalf of a number of constituents from the communities of Logan
Lake and Kamloops. The petitioners are concerned about the
government's intentions to continue on with the multilateral
agreement on investment, most commonly referred to as the MAI.
They point out all sorts of reasons why they oppose the MAI.
They raise the question of who supports the MAI. They point out
that it is in particular the international corporations that are
promoting this. They are asking the government to back off and
not proceed.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the
second petition the petitioners are concerned about the
government's intention to change the way senior citizens are
provided pensions. They are worried that it will be targeting
pensions based on family income. They list a number of other
concerns and are basically suggesting that no changes be made
until all Canadians have had adequate opportunity to provide
input into the decision.
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition related to taxation. The petitioners are
concerned that 90% of the seats at the stadium for the Blue Jays
are really tax deductions and not people simply buying a ticket.
They make the case that it is the same for all professional
sports. They ask why this kind of tax deduction is permitted,
what kind of business is being transacted as they watch a Blue
Jays game or the Raptors play or any professional sport.
They consider it to be an absolute abuse of the taxes. They are
suggesting that real fair tax reform is long overdue.
JUSTICE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first is from my
Calgary riding of Nose Hill. It asks for significant amendments
to the Young Offenders Act.
MARRIAGE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition asks parliament to enact Bill C-225,
a private member's bill introduced by the Liberal member for
Scarborough Southwest, which has to do with the definition of
marriage.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a couple of petitions to
present. In the first the petitioners believe that Canadians
basically understand the concept of marriage as only the
voluntary union of a single, that is unmarried, male and a
single, that is unmarried, female.
Whereas it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage as
it has always been known and understood in Canada be preserved
and protected, they therefore petition parliament to enact Bill
C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and
the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage
can only be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
ASSISTED SUICIDE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
second petition has to do with the sanctity of human life. The
petitioners believe that the majority of Canadians believe
physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not to end
them. They therefore petition parliament to ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
JUSTICE
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from the constituency
of Souris—Moose Mountain.
It has 15 pages. The people across this constituency from every
corner are asking parliament to significantly amend the Young
Offenders Act. It is a big issue there and I am pleased to
present this petition.
1515
PESTICIDES
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition from British Columbians. They are asking
parliament to withdraw or cancel the pesticide use permit number
21401898 issued to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the
ministry of agriculture and that parliament enact legislation to
prevent the spraying of the citizens of Canada with bacteria and
chemical pesticides in the future. This petition has been signed
by more than 2,000 citizens.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
petitions on behalf of citizens of Manitoba. They request that
parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the
year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a
binding timetable for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that all the questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—JUDICIAL RULINGS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume the
debate on this issue.
I began by saying that I was particularly distressed by the
motion on the floor because I think it offends both the
principles of democracy and principles of equality that Canada
has in fact espoused for so long.
In terms of democratic principles, we are hearing today that the
opposition party wishes to state that parliament should have
complete say and should have authority over the courts of this
land. That is really what the basis of this motion is about.
I went on to say that one of the problems was that in many
places where there was no democracy, that is exactly what happens
with disastrous results. We only have to look at areas like
South Africa and regimes where we know that judges are thrown
into jail and people are not allowed to talk about equality or to
talk about anything that the government or the parliament of that
land does not wish them to speak about.
The danger of having this House tell judges what they should and
should not do is it interferes with the fundamental principles of
justice. There have been many gains in Canada that have given us
a reputation that is enviable around the world in terms of our
ability to promote human rights and to foster equality in this
country.
Many of those changes have been made because of case law,
because of recommendations and because of rulings brought about.
The courts in fact have moved parliament to move the agenda
forward to recognize the rights of individuals, the rights of
groups and to bring about the issue of equality.
When the courts speak to justice, when they make the decisions,
they inform parliament. They assist parliament. They hold a
mirror to parliament so that we can continue to bring about the
things we hold dear as espoused in our charter and as espoused in
the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Putting a lid on the courts of this land, deciding that the
courts have absolutely no power to move the agenda of justice
forward is an abuse of power. That is exactly what is being said
today in this motion. It may be put in all kinds of a wonderful
manner. It is very common for the party across the way to put
this kind of discriminatory, anti-justice statement forward in
such smooth and sophisticated language, but the truth is what I
am speaking about.
1520
The fundamental truth behind this is about the abuse of power of
the House that is being espoused by that party. We have heard
the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. When it first came into the House that party talked
about justice. It talked about grassroots. It talked about the
rights of the people and the rights of the individual. And as
soon as it becomes the official opposition we see what power can
do. Boy, can it can corrupt.
This is also about equality. The basic and fundamental
principle of Canadian society is about equality. Equality is not
about sameness. Equality is about recognizing the differences in
our society. This is one of the most diverse societies in the
world. It is not only diverse in terms of the race of its
people, their colour, their religion and their abilities and
disabilities. It is diverse in every sector we can imagine that
the vibrancy of humanity brings about in its diversity. That
diversity gives us strength.
One of the most important things we need to know is the
differences that we all share as humans present for us many
different barriers that we must overcome if we are to achieve
equality. Good government and good justice are about recognizing
those barriers and setting different strategies to achieve
equality, knowing that when other groups are denied equality
under the law we must do something. This is where the courts of
our land have led. What that group is saying basically is that
it is opposed to fundamental equality.
We also hear the term family values; let us not talk about
anything that breaks down the traditional family. I remember
what the traditional family used to be. If a young woman had a
baby out of wedlock she was chased out of the town. She was a
pariah. Nobody wanted to talk to her because she was not married
and she had a child.
We also know in days gone by the public service would not hire a
married woman because she was taking a job away from a man who
was the breadwinner. We know about some of these kinds of
things. We know about some of the divisions that have gone on.
People have been discriminated against because of their colour
or because of all of their differences. We know that there was a
time when the diversity of the House would never have occurred
because people were not even allowed to vote in this country
because of their differences.
These were all brought about by the parliaments of the day. It
is our charter of rights and our legal system and the courts of
the land that have moved the agenda forward so we are the people
we are today.
To stand here and say that this is about denying the family and
about breaking down the family is the same as when we used to say
if we let people of a certain colour into a particular place it
would change the tone of the place. Do we want them to live next
to us when landlords and ownership of land was built so that
everybody could not live next to each other? Women were not
considered to be persons and could not sit in the Senate. These
were the laws of the land. We are talking about suggesting that
parliament knows all and sees all.
We talk about the new family of today being a group, a unit. The
fundamental recognition is that they support each other
financially, emotionally and bring about stable units in our
society. How many of us are here and have been brought up by a
single mother? How many of us are here because we have come out
of a blended family? We now see from surveys of families that
people are not necessarily getting married, that many structures
are common law structures. Are we suggesting that there is no
room in this fundamental understanding of what is a family of
what is a bond of support between two people, that it must be so
narrowly defined and be limited to the old ways?
One of the hon. members from the official opposition stood up in
the House today and said that this has been going on for
millennia. Precisely. All kinds of offensive acts have been
going on for millennia. People have been denied justice in this
world for millennia.
Now is a good time for parliaments of the land to consider how
the issue of justice is served, that it is not only served by the
parliaments of the land, that it is served in many ways by the
courts of this land. Justice has to do with the recognition of
difference and acknowledging and respecting difference, as well
as looking at the stability of our communities and the things
that make them stable.
1525
People do not have to be of a particular colour, sex or sexual
orientation in order to love, to support, to be caring and to
uphold the structure of society. It is not limited to any one
group in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you I am very offended by this
motion. You have no idea. I am getting rather incensed right
now.
Civil society must be based on the premise of respect for
differences. This is what our society is based on. Reform's
failure to recognize this says how out of touch its members are
with the reality of the lives of the people they say they are
supposed to serve.
Everyone recognizes the things Canada has done. Canada for the
fourth year running is the best country in the world in which to
live in terms of human relationships. Three years ago Canada
received a humanitarian award from the United Nations. It was
the first time a country had been given this award. This award
was given because Canada is the only, and I underline the word
only, country in the world to have been able to give justice and
equality to all its diverse people in a timely and equitable
manner.
We are the only country that recognizes that equality is about
difference and about recognizing difference. There is no room in
Canada for diversity is what that party is saying. The narrow
definition of families is what really offends me. It should
offend everyone who lives in a non-traditional family in this
country.
I want to conclude by saying that when we talk about how we
bring about human rights in this country, it is not about looking
back at what we used to do in the “good old days” because many
of those good old days were very bad old days. We must look at
ourselves as a country that has a role to play in the world. It
is a country which I firmly believe in the next millennium is
going to be asked to take up the mantle of leadership. It is not
because we are the wealthiest country in the world because we are
not. And it is certainly not because we have the mightiest army
in the world.
The world is looking to Canada because we have defined the
concept of democracy. We have defined the concept of human
rights. We have defined the concept of equality in such a way
that we have given life to the people of our country. It allows
them to walk proud. It allows them to take their place under the
laws of our land. They can all achieve whatever is their
fundamental potential. And we can have a society where everyone
regardless of their colour, their race, their gender, their
sexual orientation, their religion can feel that they really and
truly belong, that they have a place in this society.
For us to believe that we as parliamentarians know it all and
have all the answers and cannot listen to what the justices, the
supreme court and other people in our land tell us is absolute
arrogance which offends me as well.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite shocking to listen to a minister of this
government who sits in cabinet utter such responses to a motion
brought forward in a democratic way for discussion on the floor
of this House.
The hon. minister says that she is offended that the opposition
would bring this motion forward for debate. I wonder what her
vision of democracy is all about when she is offended by free and
open debate in this place. It is rather shocking. I think it
tells quite a bit about this government, its weaknesses and its
inability to want to face questions and debate in an open way.
I would like to ask her a quick question. She mentioned family.
She mentioned all sorts of things in her rambling discourse. I
want to ask her about a comment made by her own colleague, the
government House leader in a letter he wrote to a constituent in
1994.
The government House leader stated “I object to any suggestion
that would have homosexual couples treated the same way as
heterosexual couples. I do not believe homosexual couples should
be treated as families. My wife Mary Ann and I do not claim we
are homosexual. Why should homosexuals pretend they form a
family”. This came quite shockingly from the government House
leader.
I would like to know if she agrees with her colleague in
cabinet.
1530
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the hon. member
thought that my rambling discourse was too difficult for him to
follow. I am sure that the complex ideas I brought forward
probably are too difficult for him to follow.
I am not offended at the debate. The fact the debate is going
on in the House says that we indeed have a democratic society in
which we can debate these issues. I am offended at the context
of the motion, at what the motion proposes.
The important thing we have to talk about is that when we ask a
question hopefully we want an answer and hopefully the answer
will shed light and clarify the thinking. If we do not listen
then we will always be stuck in our same little world.
I am not offended by the debate. I am offended at the
principles put forward in the motion, as I said and which was
difficult for the hon. member to follow, that were fundamentally
undemocratic. They would suggest that the supreme court of the
land does not have something to teach and to inform the House, or
that equality was about sameness, old traditions, millennia of
old rules and old ways that have completely offended the people
of our country and left many people outside equality and without
rights under the law.
The issue regarding families is not about being married,
unmarried, single, gay, lesbian, heterosexual or not. It is
about recognizing a fundamental structure in society that holds
people together, supports them and binds them in emotional and
financial relationships. All those structures, regardless of
whatever form they take in this rapidly changing and diverse
country of ours, must be honoured and must be given equality
under the law.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
a very basic question. Does the hon. member think that the
Rosenberg case should be appealed?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, it is not my place to make
that decision or to even comment on that decision.
We are discussing a motion which basically says that the courts
of our land do not have a right to interfere in what parliament
does or does not do. That is what I am debating. Those
decisions will be left up to the Government of Canada to discuss
later.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
answer to the question of my colleague the minister went on at
some length directly contradicting what the House leader of the
Liberal Party said.
I would like her to repeat after me: I disagree with my House
leader.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, this smacks of trying to put
words into someone's mouth. I will not repeat what the hon.
member has asked me to repeat. I am certainly not a trained seal
like hon. members across where I bark when I am told and I
reiterate whatever I am told by someone else.
The fundamental thing about a democracy is that everyone is free
to make whatever statements they want, to decide what they want
and to believe in whatever principles they want. They should not
be judged based on those decisions.
I am here to speak for myself in this debate on the motion
brought forward. Members have heard my position. I think it
reflects that the Liberal Party and the government believe in
democracy, the rule of law, order, understanding change and
moving toward equality not being about sameness. That is what I
am here to talk about.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member indicated she is not a trained seal, but in fact
in the vote on hepatitis C every Liberal member voted with the
will of the Prime Minister.
An hon. member: On command.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: On command they voted against
compensating all victims who have hepatitis C. Quite frankly
trained seal might be an overstatement, but I think the words
trained and obey would apply in the circumstances.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, while I would love to respond
to the statement I have absolutely nothing to say because for me
it does not mean anything.
1535
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question then.
The minister, like the rest of us, has a lot of respect for the
courts and for the judicial system. They are part and parcel of
our system of justice and system of law.
The law clearly states that it is parliament that makes the law.
One honourable esteemed judge explicitly said that these
legislative changes were a role of parliament. That principle has
been carried through many generations.
I would like to ask for a response as to whether the minister
really believes that we should shut down this place and allow the
courts of the land to create the law as well as to interpret and
apply it.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. That is
contrary to what I was saying earlier. The fact that we stand
here today to debate the issue is what democracy is all about. It
is what the House is all about.
I am talking about some fairly fundamental principles that are
being debated here. I am talking about the substance of debate.
I know substantive debate is frowned upon by hon. members
opposite, but we are talking about substantive debate. We are
talking about the context of the motion. We are also talking
about what that motion could mean in the long term.
It is that which offends me, not the fact that we sit here and
debate and not that parliament does not have the right to make
laws. If we continue to presume that we are arrogant enough to
know all the answers, if we continue to presume that since we
have done it the same way for thousands of years we should
continue to do so, there will never be any progress. The gains
the country has made which have made it the number one country in
the world would have been absolutely futile and for naught.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I asked the
minister an explicit question and I would like a straight answer.
Does she believe that the courts should be creating law, making
law, making rules and thereby making this place redundant? I
still want an answer to that question.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, the courts are not here to
make the law. The courts are here to interpret the law. Our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms is pretty clear. Our Canadian
Human Rights Act is pretty clear. The courts are here to
interpret laws within the context of the society in which we
live, interpreting and informing lawmakers at the same time.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Hon. Hedy Fry: We are back to the concept that they ask a
question but they really do not want to know the answer. When we
try to give the answer they keep talking. If the member would
like to listen to the answer I will repeat it.
Yes, the courts are here to interpret the laws. The courts are
not only here to interpret the laws. They are also here to
interpret them under the umbrella of our Constitution, our
charter and our Canadian Human Rights Act. At the same time they
are to look at them within the context of the society in which we
live, defining and looking at society to see how it has achieved
equality under the laws that are already in existence.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we just
heard a most unenlightening diatribe of information. It was a
total misconception of the context within which the motion was
written and a total misunderstanding of the actual words that
were written. I am very surprised that the lady has left, but
really not because she does not want to be learned, I do not
think, about the issue.
The issue before us is a serious one. We should take this issue
on the basis of what is right and wrong about it rather than
whether it is a Liberal interpretation, a Reform interpretation
or any other interpretation. What is being dealt with here is
the fundamental question of who shall be supreme: parliament or
the judiciary.
The crux of the issue is who determines the law, who interprets
that law and who applies that law? That is the point being made
by the particular motion before the House this afternoon.
That is the question we need to address. The issue in this case
specifically centres around a particular word and its definition.
The word is spouse and the definition of that word.
1540
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that all Reform
speakers will be sharing their time.
The issue centres around the word spouse. The Ontario Court of
Appeal has decided that the definition of spouse shall be a
person of the same sex who cohabits at that time with the
taxpayer in a conjugal relationship. That is the definition that
has now been given by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that parliament
does not share that definition of the court of appeal in Ontario.
I dare suggest that not only does it not share the definition but
the Minister of Justice presented to the House in Bill C-37 a
definition that is rather different.
The definition she used when she presented the bill was as
follows. It referred to a surviving spouse but the key word is
spouse. What is the definition? In relation to a judge, it
includes a person of the opposite sex who has cohabited with a
judge in a conjugal relationship for at least one year
immediately prior to the judge's death.
The question then becomes a rather interesting one. How is it
possible that parliament has clearly stated as recently as last
week its definition and the court of appeal of Ontario has come
forth with a different definition?
There is a fundamental cross current, shoving and pushing, that
does not make much sense. It seems to me the equivocation about
the definition of spouse in this case is what? Is it different
for a judge than it is for other people? How could that possibly
be? We heard the hon. member opposite talk about equality. That
would suggest that judges are not to be treated differently than
other citizens in Canada.
We need to recognize that the minister of the crown in this case
does not have her thinking in order. If the minister is to be
known as a minister of integrity, and I think she wants to be and
is, I believe she has no other option but to appeal the decision
in the Rosenberg case. She must do so.
I want to raise another issue which is as significant and
perhaps even more significant. It has to do with leadership.
Underlying all legislation and our Constitution is a system of
beliefs and values. We believe in democracy as the best form of
government. We believe democracy, government of the people for
the people by the people, is the best. For that kind of
government to succeed it requires a particular sense of beliefs.
First there is the belief that is the best form of government. I
cannot help but think about the late prime minister of Britain,
Mr. Churchill, when he said “Democracy is a clumsy form of
government but it is better than anything else”.
We begin to wonder exactly what these hon. members are saying
when they disagree with this point. Not only do we need to have
an understanding of the underlying principles of democracy.
There is also the need for a system of values that we all agree
on to develop a consensus of opinion about anything at all. In
order for that consensus to be consistent, those values must be
shared among a large group of people. It is true that requires
at least a semblance of recognizing we have a common purpose, a
common set of directions. This is where I have appealed to the
minister to go in a new direction.
1545
I refer to a philosopher down across the line who has described
the North American continent, in particular the United States but
also Canada, that we live in a cognitive, moral, confused
situation. There really does not seem to be any particular
belief or recognition that there is a right or a wrong.
Recently a group of students were asked what they would do if
they had to choose between saving the life of a pet and a human
being. The choice was the pet. What does this say? It tells us
that we have a very interesting set of values that has changed
rather dramatically.
What that also suggests is that we have a moral deregulation.
What is right is what works for us. In fact, we have changed a
large part of our vocabulary. Looters, for example, are now
non-traditional shoppers. Killers are morally challenged. We
must recognize that there is such a thing as an objective moral
truth.
How do I dare say such a thing? I quote from philosopher Dr.
Christina Hoff Summers, a W.H. Brady Fellow at the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.:
While it is true that we must debate controversial issues, we
must not forget there exists a core of noncontroversial ethical
issues that were settled a long time ago. We must make students
aware that there is a standard of ethical ideals that all
civilizations worthy of the name have discovered. We must
encourage them to read the Bible, Aristotle's Ethics,
Shakespeare's King Lear, the Koran, and the Analects
of Confucius. When they read almost any great work, they will
encounter these basic moral values: integrity, respect for human
life, self-control, honesty, courage, and self-sacrifice. All
the world's major religions proffer some version of the golden
rule, if only in its negative form: Do not do unto others as you
would not have them do unto you.
These are not my words. These are the words of a scholar who
has studied broadly, widely and deeply. These are the values
that we agree on, courage, integrity and self-control. We like
these things.
If the minister in this case allows the appeal court's decision
to stand because she fails to act, which is all she has to do for
it to go ahead, she will not only be internally inconsistent with
herself through her definition of spouse in Bill C-37, but she
will also be inconsistent with the legislation of parliament.
Even more significant is that if she does not act she will also
lose her integrity. That in my opinion is the worst criticism I
could offer. By her inaction she will tell the people of Canada
that she is an advocate of moral deregulation which, in its
simplest form, simply means morality is whatever works for us.
This is not good enough.
That is a betrayal of all the great literature and of all
civilizations that have found that there are basic and objective
moral values which are integrity, respect for human life and
things of this sort.
Will she do it? I implore her to.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel I must respond with a
comment and ask a question.
What started the discussion was the motion put forward by the
hon. opposition members which states that in the opinion of this
House federal legislation should not be amended or redrafted by
judicial rulings. What this really states is that the courts
have absolutely no right to interpret the law and no right to
point out to parliament when they believe it has done something
wrong.
1550
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think it is important to note that the hon. member was
referring to the motion and actually misread the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: She may have, and I am sure the
minister is delighted to have that drawn to her attention, but I
do not believe it is a point of order.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, my comprehension of this
motion is extremely sound. What we have is a general statement
being made here which says that in the opinion of this House
federal legislation should not be amended, and then it gives an
example. The broad statement is that federal legislation should
not be amended or changed or be subject to any comment at all by
the courts.
That is what I was referring to. The issue of equality then
came in. The hon. member just said we are all talking about
equality here and judges should be treated equally.
It is the kind of simplistic reasoning we listen to across this
House every single day. It is difficult to deal with that kind
of simplistic reasoning. If we are to say that when judges speak
about an issue of law, an interpretation of law, they are on the
same par as I am, although I am not a judge and do not understand
the interpretation of law in that same way, we are not even
understanding what we really mean by equality, by expert opinion,
by knowledge gained in a profession.
It is like saying that anybody should be treated equally if they
choose to do a gallbladder operation on somebody. The concept of
equality is so flawed in the minds of the hon. members across the
House that I often wonder if we should even be bothering to
debate it.
Then we bring up the issue of my integrity and of right and
wrong and morality and of what philosophers have said about
courage and integrity and self-control.
Courage is the ability to do the right thing even though it may
be unpopular. When we talk about moral values, whose moral
values do we speak about? Do we continue to talk of the tyranny
of the majority? When we speak about morality, do we speak about
Judeo-Christian morality? Do we speak about Islamic morality? Do
we speak about human rights? Do we speak about morality of the
aboriginal people? What do we mean by morality? Must we always
continue to define everything we do based on our own particular
religion and wherever we come from?
The concept of morality is a broader one. It is about
understanding the need of every human being to be able to realize
their potential, to live freely in the way that God created him
or her and to have access to everything that God has put on this
earth and the people here to make sure they do not put barriers
in the way of that. That is morality. That is fundamental
morality.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to be
able to respond to the hon. member.
I understand that the hon. member in her other life is a well
trained and very competent professional and knows fully the
significance of defining words precisely and very accurately. I
know that very well.
I also know that what she just referred to as morality was not
what I said at all. I read rather clearly about the values that
have been found in literature, in philosophy and the various
issues. When she asked whose morality, I did not address that
particular question. I said these are some of the things we need
to do, and that is a very significant issue.
The other point about judges having no input into our society
and how the law is interpreted and that there may be some errors
in the law, they might be better writing the law, that is not the
question here today. I encourage people to do exactly that.
The issue here is a decision of an appeal court. That is not a
question of saying the law could be improved. That is not what
that is. That is a decision saying that the law from this point
forward shall be stated thus. That is different from saying
legislators should look at this and see whether it might not be
better to rewrite the law. I think that becomes the issue here.
I am afraid that she misread what I was trying to say rather
badly.
1555
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is happening here is an abandonment of family values by the
Liberal government and a clear display of hypocrisy when it comes
to defending traditional families.
By the lack of will on the part of the justice minister and the
Liberal government to appeal the Rosenberg decision what is
happening is that the Liberal government is allowing the courts
to bypass parliament and to rewrite federal laws.
The Reform Party motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, federal legislation should
not be altered by judicial rulings, as happened in the
redefinitions of the term “spouse” in the Rosenberg decision,
and that, accordingly, the government should immediately appeal
the Rosenberg decision.
The purpose of our motion is to try to put the Liberals' feet to
the fire and get them to come out clearly on one side or the
other. The reason I say they have displayed hypocrisy is they
are clearly not going to appeal that decision.
I have some letters here. One is from the justice minister. I
quote from a portion of the letter that she wrote on April 29 of
this year:
The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute
passed by parliament, but is found in what is called the federal
common law dating from an 1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v
Woodmansee—This case has been applied consistently in Canada
and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the
same sex, or between multiple wives or husbands.
Thus, the definition of marriage is already clear in law in
Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel
from my department have successfully defended, and will continue
to defend, this concept of marriage in court.
That is the key part of her letter.
That concept and that term has just been rewritten by the
federal court. Now the justice minister is unwilling to
intervene and to appeal that decision. The reason I use the word
hypocrisy is how can she clearly state in a letter dated April 29
that the government will defend this concept of marriage that we
have had from the beginning of the history of our country, but
now in the face of losing that she is not prepared to act?
I have another letter dated February 24 of last year from the
current health minister in which says basically the same thing.
For quite some time Liberal cabinet ministers seem to have had no
difficulty in writing down and stating in no uncertain terms
their willingness to defend the traditional family. But now in
the face of this decision by a court they are willing to
completely reverse themselves on that issue. The implications of
this are very significant.
Most important is the issue of who is supreme in this country
with respect to law making. Is it the judiciary or parliament?
Time and time again we see cases where judges are rewriting law
and parliament seems to be unwilling to stand up and exercise
what should be our supreme authority, law making.
The Rosenberg ruling which came down April 23 in the Ontario
Court of Appeal changed the definition of the term spouse in the
Income Tax Act to include same sex relationships.
Parliament writes the laws in this country and the courts are
there to apply them. The courts should not create public policy
because judges are not elected legislators. It is not their
place.
1600
Clearly the justice minister should appeal the Rosenberg
decision in order to protect the definition of the term spouse
and to uphold parliament's role as the supreme law making
authority in Canada. Failure to do so will prove that the
Liberals are less interested in protecting families and more
interested in pursuing a social engineering agenda.
What strikes me as even more hypocritical is that currently
before the House of Commons is Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Judges Act. Written within that legislation is a definition of
spouse which includes a person of the opposite sex. There is
consistency between the letters of the cabinet ministers I have
referred to and legislation coming from their departments. But
there is no consistency with that and their lack of willingness
to intervene against the decision of the court.
Why is the definition of spouse a concern? Governments have
authorized many benefits under the term spouse, including income
tax deductions, eligibility for pensions, spousal benefits,
employee fringe benefits, et cetera. They have authorized that
to opposite sex couples specifically because of the role they
play in procreation and the raising of children.
By tradition and nature the terms spouse and marriage refer to
the union of a man and a woman. Such a cornerstone of public
policy ought not to be changed by the courts. Rather if the
government is committed to such a change, it should be done in
the full light of parliamentary debate.
The lack of willingness for the Liberal government to appeal
that decision simply amounts to hiding behind the judicial
decision and not taking the responsibility to debate this and
other similar type issues in which judges have rewritten laws, to
bring it to parliament and debate it. It is hiding behind
judges' rulings instead of confronting the issue head on and
showing some leadership. That is what we see repeatedly from
this Liberal government, a lack of leadership.
Here is an opportunity for the Liberals to display leadership,
to be consistent with their previously stated positions. Instead
they are going to hide behind the decision of a judge and
overturn the definition of a spouse which has stood throughout
the history of our country.
I will quote the current health minister when he was the justice
minister. He said the courts should not make policy or rewrite
statutes, that that is the role of parliament. How then can he
sit in the House today and act in complete contradiction to what
he stated on October 25, 1994? Again it is clear, blatant
hypocrisy.
I would also like to point out that in the 35th parliament
Motion No. M-264 proposing the legal recognition of same sex
spouses was defeated in this House by a vote of 52 to 124, almost
a three to one margin.
The will of parliament on this issue is clear. Why then are the
courts writing it in when parliament has clearly already said no?
The courts are overstepping their boundaries. They are
overstepping their jurisdiction. This government really should
demonstrate some leadership and demonstrate to Canadians and the
courts that the supremacy in law making in this country lies in
this House, not at the discretion of appointed judges.
1605
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a couple
of things the hon. member said.
He said that this government has taken away its support for
traditional families. On the contrary. This government has
strengthened its support for traditional families. This
government has taken measures within the last budget, within our
employment insurance, within the child tax benefit, in all sorts
of ways to provide support for traditional families.
I am glad that the hon. member used the term traditional and the
recognition that parliament must serve the people in all of the
diversity of its people. Today the traditional family is no
longer the norm for a family. There are many other families. Is
the hon. member trying to say that the government cannot serve
all families, including traditional families? This is what we
are seeking to do if we talk about equality. We are seeking to
serve all families.
The hon. member also made a statement about a social engineering
agenda. Is the hon. member trying to suggest that recognition in
any way, shape or form of same sex families means that it is
catching, that we are trying to make sure that everybody in Canada
becomes gay or changes their sexual orientation? What does the
hon. member mean by social engineering? This is a very
interesting question. I would like him to give me an answer to
that.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that
the Liberal government is strengthening support for traditional
families. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. Time
and time again we come before this House and implore the Liberals
to change the discriminatory tax policies that this government
holds against families. They refuse to act. To say that the
Liberals are strengthening support for families, nothing could be
further from the truth.
Furthermore, changing the definition of a spouse from the union
of a man and a woman to two men or two women, if someone cannot
see how that is an erosion of traditional family values, then I
do not know. I guess I am at a loss for words.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me come back to the member's point about
surrendering the sovereignty of parliament to the courts. The
member seems to be so upset about the fact that the courts are
interpreting what the concept of discrimination is. Does he and
his party believe that we should repeal the charter?
Is the member not aware that the Rosenberg decision is a
decision by one of the highest courts of this land? The charter
is the highest law of the land and rules over all other laws that
we pass in this House. If the laws are inconsistent with the
provisions of that charter, if they discriminate against people
and if he and his party were to come into power and wanted to
pass laws which would single out groups for discrimination, would
he be in favour of repealing the charter? Is that what he
believes? Does he not believe that we have courts in this land
whose very job is to ensure that we in this House act in terms of
the principles of non-discrimination and tolerance which govern
our society?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member very
much for his question. At least part of it was on issue, that is,
the issue of the supremacy of the courts versus parliament.
The authority of a court should be to rule whether a law is
valid or invalid, whether it is constitutional or not. The
courts do not and should not have the authority to rewrite laws
which they have done in this case.
Mr. Speaker, I hear absolutely rude and obscene heckling. I
would like you to intervene.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have another
minute for questions and comments. If you would like to finish
your comment.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: That is absolutely pathetic.
The last thing I would like to say is that this is
not singling out groups for discrimination. It is simply saying
that for the entire history of our country, a spouse has been
defined as a union of a man and a woman.
An hon. member: You are saying your way or the highway.
1610
Mr. Jim Pankiw: I am saying that I am proud to stand here
and defend the definition of a spouse that we have had since the
beginning of the history of our country as the union of a man and
a woman. Frankly, the minister's heckling is obscene and
disgusting.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the member who last spoke did concede that
this is an issue which we should be discussing and that we are on
solid ground.
Let us talk for a moment in this House about the Rosenberg
decision and what we are trying to achieve in the House.
Rosenberg was a decision by one of the highest and most respected
courts in this country. It was about the interpretation of the
charter, the fundamental document which governs us in our
democratic society. It guarantees that this legislature and all
legislatures across the country will conduct themselves in
accordance with the principles which govern us as Canadian
citizens and as legislatures.
I believe that that charter decision was right. I believe that
it was right in what it was stating about us and our society. It
was right about what it was trying to do in ensuring that people
were not discriminated against because from a practical point of
view it does not make sense in today's world, and I will come
back to that point. It is right in principle and it is right
about what it is doing in society. It is right about what it is
doing in my riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale and in all
members' ridings in terms of people who are living in similar
circumstances who are paying taxes, leading decent lives and who
have a right to be treated the same as everybody else.
To go back to the issue of which is supreme, the courts or
parliament, I made this point when I asked the member my
question. In my view the charter is supreme. Parliament spoke.
The people of this country approved of the charter. We as
legislators and the legislatures of the various provinces
approved of the charter precisely because the people were aware
that one day people could stand up and make the allegations of
the type that are being made in this House. The people were
aware that they wanted a bulwark of courts and law to stand
between them and the type of rhetoric we have been listening to
this afternoon.
When it is said the charter is being misinterpreted by the court
in the Rosenberg decision, where were those members when we
adopted the changes to the human rights act? I was in the House
that night. Seventy-five per cent of the members in the House
voted in favour of changing the human rights act to provide
against discrimination. They represented the will of the Canadian
people. When the Rosenberg judges read what we were doing in
this House and they made that decision, they were saying
Canadians do not believe in discrimination and that they as the
courts are not in the business of enforcing it. If you read that
decision—
An hon. member: We are not talking about discrimination.
Mr. Bill Graham: Oh, yes, you are. You have not read the
Rosenberg and the Supreme Court of Canada decisions which clearly
say that these measures are discriminatory and cannot be saved
under section 1 of the charter. They can only be saved under
section 7 if they are to be justified in a reasonable and
democratic society which our courts have said they cannot.
Let me finish with my point and then we can engage in this
debate further about the nature of the charter, the nature of the
courts and ourselves.
Let us talk for a moment about ordinary people trying to work
and live in our society and trying to create a life for
themselves. These are decent everyday people who are saying “I
do not understand something. I am working and paying into a
pension plan. I do not get the same tax treatment as somebody
else”. This is not a case about family values in the sense that
the member is trying to cast it. This is not a threat to the
traditional family. I do not believe that the traditional
families in my riding of Toronto Centre—Rosedale believe that
their existence is so fragile that it has to be built by
discriminating against somebody else. That is not the nature of
traditional family values.
The traditional family values in our country are ones of
tolerance, of working with one another, of trying to work out our
differences, of working out how we can survive together. The
best employers in the city of Toronto follow these principles. I
speak of the University of Toronto and other employers, but I
also speak of the Toronto Sun which does not happen to be
known as being a paragon of crazy Liberal values.
1615
The Toronto Sun does its best to ensure that its employees
are not discriminated against in their pension benefits. Why?
Because it wants to hire the very best people. The city of
Toronto almost unanimously—only two councillors voted against it
on Friday—voted on the issue we are talking about today. They
said they did not want as a city to be paying taxes and into
benefit systems which could not guarantee that their employees of
whatever nature would be treated on the same basis.
That is what we are talking about. That is what the Government
of Nova Scotia was talking about when it adopted a similar
measure recently. Nobody was talking about destroying family
values.
I can understand why Reformers want to cloak this issue in
family values. In that way they can rally around people who are
frightened and who are seriously worried about what is happening
in society. I am as concerned as they are about divorce rates,
family break-ups and other issues of that nature. To suggest
they are talking about how people will be treated economically is
a mistake. I say that sincerely because I believe they are
seeking to use the example of family values on the backs of other
people to discriminate against them.
The member who spoke before me spoke about family values and the
definition of spouse. I can remember when I was a young law
student that the definition of spouse at that time would not have
included common law spouses. It would not have included men and
women living together for more than three, four or five years and
contributing together in circumstances that were not part of the
traditional family. The Income Tax Act and other acts in those
days discriminated against such people.
We have learned since then that we must recognize the right of
Canadians to be able to choose their own lives. I am surprised
by the Reform Party which is always talking about getting the
state out of the face of people and getting the government away
from dictating how they should live.
I suggest the true social engineer is the Reform Party. It is
not us who say do not let individuals choose their lives when
they are not harming anyone and are making a contribution to
society. It is Reform members when they stand in the House to say
they want to social engineer us into living in a certain type of
relationship or being discriminated against in terms of pensions
in other benefits. That is the true social engineering of the
Reform Party.
It is a mistake on behalf of Reformers to bring forward the
motion at this time. They have misread the nature of the
Rosenberg decision and the nature of the mood of our country and
of the House. Let us live with tolerance and encourage citizens
who are willing to work and live together to create constructive
social units in our cities and in our rural areas and make real
contributions to the country. Let them be a part of the Canadian
family. Let them all work together. Let us all work together to
create that type of society, not a discriminatory one.
I am reminded that I am to split my time with the member for
Windsor—St. Clair.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's debate.
I would like to ask him a question about how this decision might
impact further on other individuals in our society.
I think of my own mother who is a widow and her sister who is
just recently widowed and the fact they might be living together
very shortly. Would they fit under the same definition for
recognizing benefits? They would be of the same sex but not in a
conjugal relationship. What about other individuals in similar
situations, two friends living together or whomever else it might
be?
What does my hon. colleague think about the courts setting
direction and reading meanings into law? Does he agree with that
or that decisions should be made in the House?
1620
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his very reasonable question. It is something we have to discuss
in the House.
My first principle is that we passed the charter. We cannot
interpret the charter ourselves. We gave the courts the
responsibility of interpreting the charter. The time will come
when a case similar to that of his mother and aunt living
together in similar circumstances might arise. They could go to a
Canadian court to say they should not be discriminated against
when other groups in society are not being discriminated against.
They may well find the law at that point, as the court in the
Rosenberg case decided, fits them within it. If that is what the
courts say I will support it wholeheartedly. I will support it
in the House. I will support it as a matter of public policy.
I do not think it will cost the exchequer of the country
enormous amounts of money. It will provide an opportunity for
people who are living together in similar circumstances and have
made similar contributions to society to be recognized in our
laws.
I cannot prejudge what a court would say. I can say that it is
the type of issue I would be more than happy to discuss with the
member. It is perfectly reasonable. If we could keep our
discussion on that sort of level we would all be much further
ahead in the House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will ask
the member a question with respect to the nub of the debate
today, the supremacy of the legislative function.
I do not think anyone argues with the fact that the Supreme
Court of Canada has the final say on judicial matters. It has
long been accepted that the legislative arm of government is
vested in parliament, in the House of Commons with the rubber
stamp of the Senate, which is appointed, not elected and
therefore of some questionable legitimacy.
If the court makes a decision contrary to the will of the people
as expressed in the House of Commons, would the member take
objection to it? I am speaking specifically of the issues we are
talking about. In parliament we have specifically debated and in
free votes have clearly rejected this premise. In the votes
managed by the front benches over there things have gone the
opposite way, which is also a violation of democracy.
I would like him to respond. Does parliament have supremacy in
the legislative function of our land or does it not?
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question
when I first started. Parliament has supremacy in the
legislative functions we exercise subject to the constraints we
chose freely to impose upon ourselves through the charter, the
supreme law of the land. The same is true of all provincial
legislatures. The same is true of ours. Unless we choose to
adopt the notwithstanding clause we have accepted to fetter our
jurisdiction in that way, and I have no trouble with that.
I think the hon. member is operating from a false premise. He
says we have spoken on the issue and the courts have gone against
how we spoke. We have not spoken on the issue since parliament
adopted the Human Rights Act amendments in a free vote, not
imposed by the front bench.
The House will remember very well that it was a free vote. There
was a lot of controversy here as to whether or not it should be a
free vote. Many people felt it should not have been. The fact
that it was a free vote, and that 75% of members of the House at
that time said they were not in favour of discriminatory measures
of the type we are hearing about today, sent a clear message to
us as legislators and to the courts that the Rosenberg decision
as it stands is consistent with the mood of the House. It is
consistent with the mood of the country and it is consistent with
the basic principles which govern us as a democratic society.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the parties and I think you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of usual practice, when
proceedings on the business of supply expire at 6.30 p.m. this
day, the House shall continue to sit to consider the report stage
of Bill C-30, the report stage and third reading of Bill S-9, the
third reading stage of Bill S-3, and the consideration of Senate
amendments stage of Bill C-4;
That, any division requested on the said business shall be
deferred until the conclusion of the consideration of Government
Orders on Tuesday, June 9, 1998;
That, during the consideration of the aforementioned business,
no quorum calls, requests for unanimous consent or dilatory
motions shall be received; and
That, when no Member rises to speak during consideration of Bill
C-4, the debate shall be adjourned and the House shall adjourn to
the next sitting day.
1625
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, again, following
consultations among the parties, I think you would find unanimous
consent for this motion:
That, notwithstanding the Special Order of February 9, 1998, the
length of speeches and the rotation between parties during the
consideration of the business of supply on June 9, 1998 shall be
as provided in the Standing Orders and in the usual practice of
the House in considering Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—JUDICIAL RULINGS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the motion asks that in the opinion of the House federal
legislation should not be amended or redrafted by judicial
ruling. In effect the opposition is asking that the House
express an opinion contrary to our Canadian constitution which
clearly sets out the respective roles of parliament, the courts
and the executive.
The proper functioning of a democratic society depends on a
number of key players: parliament, the executive and the
judiciary. This is a classic situation where the sum is greater
or bigger than the parts and when each of these three parts
respects the others we enjoy a strong democratic society. I
submit that the Reform Party neither respects the House nor the
executive nor the courts. This is a problem.
To go back to constitutional law 101, it is not the courts that
limit parliament. It is the constitution which includes the
charter that limits parliament. The Canadian parliament, the
Canadian government, made a deliberate choice to provide the
courts with a role in interpreting, not in rewriting, not in
amending, the charter and the constitution. That role includes
the power to declare unconstitutional legislation invalid.
The Reformers do not believe in the charter. They have not had
the nerve to say it but they would like to get rid of the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. They claim to support the equality of
all citizens but they continually try to undermine the one
legislative instrument which guarantees equality, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Perhaps members of the Reform Party just do not understand the
role of the charter in the courts and the protection of basic
human rights. I must say I have heard them support the
constitutional role of the courts once in a while but only when
they are interpreting legislation in such a way that the courts
are actually agreeing with Reform.
The new gun registry is being challenged by the courts. If the
courts support Reform's point of view on the gun registry, does
anyone think we will hear any complaints about the courts? I do
not think so. There is no question that the rule of the courts
in interpreting the charter has given the courts a higher profile
and a more direct effect on the daily lives of Canadians. That
is not something that they are doing arbitrarily. It is a power
that we in this assembly gave to them, that nine out of ten
provincial legislatures in the country gave to the courts.
1630
While the courts exercise considerable influence on the shape of
Canadian law, they do so under well-established rules of
constitutional and statutory interpretation, not on the basis of
philosophical preference on the part of judges, and certainly
they should not be doing it on the basis of the philosophical
presence of a small rump party like Reform.
I would suggest, having read the polls today, that the 12%
solution that the Reform Party offers to Canadians is not the
solution that most Canadians would prefer.
The Canadian people do not trust the Reform Party to protect
basic human rights for good reason. Under the Reform approach
people would once again live in fear of the power of the state to
dictate how they live. The power of the government and the
legislature would be absolute, with no protection for the rights
of minorities.
In the new Canada act which it proposed, the Reform Party says
it is going to ask the legislature to give it the power to review
supreme court decisions and modify the law if necessary. We
reviewed a supreme court decision in the last parliament when we
dealt with the issue of the rape shield law. We were trying to
protect people who had been abused. I would like to ask where
the Reform Party was then. Did it show leadership in this
matter? No. It followed along, kept its toes in the water and
took its toes out. One member actually speculated at committee
on why we were not trying to protect the rights of men in this
bill and whether innocent men were being harassed by the courts.
The Reform Party cannot be trusted.
Only the most difficult issues of national importance are heard
by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is inevitable, therefore,
that there will be a body of opinion that will disagree with a
decision handed down by that court. The supreme court, in
particular, is aware of the importance of adhering to legal
standards in deciding matters and in deciding issues before it.
I am confident, and the majority of members of the House are
confident, that the Canadian courts have demonstrated and will
continue to demonstrate the necessary appreciation of their role
in a democratic society.
The charter has in effect resulted in a dynamic dialogue, a
conversation among the courts, the executive and parliament.
Unconstitutional legislation is usually replaced by legislation
which is designed to accomplish similar objectives in a more
constitutionally tailored form. This dialogue enhances the
democratic process.
In terms of recent rulings which have read in provisions to a
statute, this is a remedy the courts have used rarely and only
after careful examination. Again, this is part of the dialogue.
Legislatures are free to respond by correcting legislation with
limitations that may be justified under section 1 of the charter.
Canadian judges have been asked to assume increasingly demanding
constitutional functions in determining issues of fundamental
importance to all Canadians. I am the first to recognize that in
doing their jobs judges and their decisions are not always
popular. It seems to me that this is inevitable given that we,
the legislators, gave them the sometimes unenviable task of
determining some of the most difficult and divisive legal, social
and economic issues of our time.
It is for this very reason that we do not want “popular
judges”. Indeed, it has always been of primary importance to
all Canadians that judges be independent and free to make those
difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions.
As Madam Justice Rosalie Abella recently observed:
Governments necessarily prefer to rely on perceived majoritarian
wishes; courts, particularly in the enforcement of minority
rights, are necessarily frequently obliged to override
them—.While elected governments may wait for changing attitudes
in order to preserve public confidence and credibility, both
public confidence and institutional credibility argue in favour
of courts being free to make independent judgments
notwithstanding those same attitudes.
That is the crux of it: the independence of our judiciary. It
is the key constitutional principle and one which is critical for
the public's confidence in the judicial system.
Although all members of the public will not necessarily agree
with a particular decision, it is important that the public know
that the courts will make decisions free from the interference of
the likes of those people across the way and their fellow
travellers.
The universal declaration on the independence of justice adopted
in Montreal in 1993 states:
Judges individually, shall be free, and it shall be their duty,
to decide matters before them impartially in accordance with
their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law
without any restrictions, influences, inducements, pressures,
threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason.
1635
The United Nations General Assembly endorsed basic principles on
the independence of the judiciary in 1985. One of the principles
states:
There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference
with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the
courts be subject to revision. This principle is without
prejudice to judicial review—
All democratic governments have endorsed these principles of
judicial independence. In adopting these principles, governments
and legislatures have agreed to constrain their power to ensure
the judiciary remains independent and has the legitimacy
necessary for continued public confidence in the justice system.
I say to the other side: Stop harping. Read the Constitution.
If they cannot figure it out, they ought to get some advice.
That is what their budget is for.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite amazed that my hon. colleague states that the
courts do not limit parliament. In fact, I think she well knows,
as we all do, that when a decision is rendered by a court that
decision has an impact. It sets a precedent for future
decisions. For us to ignore that fact is irresponsible.
This was an Ontario appeal court ruling. The justice minister
is not even willing to take the next step to appeal it to the
highest court in the land, the supreme court.
The member stated that these types of cases should be appealed
to the supreme court only if they are very important cases. I
would ask her whether she thinks the definition of marriage is
not an important issue. A lot of people in this country are
looking for direction from this government and wanting to know
exactly where they stand on that particular point. The fact is
that the judiciary, in this particular case and in others, is
reading in new meaning to the law. If that is the case, does
this member agree that should continue, that a group of
individuals should decide what is best for individuals in this
country?
As the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism stated, it is the
tyranny of the majority. That is quite a shocking statement.
I wonder what her response would be to those two questions.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his questions. It simply reinforces what I said in
the past and what I will continue to say, which is that in that
party and in those quarters there is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the system, of the charter of rights and
freedoms and of our Constitution which is the highest law in the
land.
Let me say that I do support the courts in their ongoing mandate
to uphold the rights and the freedoms of all Canadians, including
minority rights.
The member specifically referred to the Rosenberg decision.
Then he talked about marriage. Rosenberg has nothing to do with
marriage.
Let me ask the hon. member and his stern faced colleagues over
there this question rhetorically. By extending these rights to
the people involved in the Rosenberg decision, by allowing two
people who care for one another to take care of one another in a
living situation, how does that detract from them and their style
of life?
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two questions for the hon. member.
First, in her speech she said that members of the Reform Party
on the one hand were opposed to this judge's decision, but on the
other hand, if the judiciary decides that Bill C-68 is
unconstitutional, we will support that. Does she not see the
difference between a judge ruling whether a law is constitutional
and a judge inserting words and rewriting legislation that should
be the sole responsibility of parliament? Does she not see the
difference? Clearly, if the judge's decision in this
constitutional challenge of Bill C-68 is to rewrite and change
the law, we would be opposed to that. That is not the job of a
judge.
Second, the hon. member and many of her Liberal colleagues are
saying that this is discriminatory stuff. I have an April 29,
1998 letter from the Minister of Justice in which she says that a
marriage is a union of persons of the opposite sex and that the
justice department will continue to defend this concept of
marriage in court. Does she think that her justice minister is
prejudiced? Because that is the same position we are taking.
1640
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I
do not view this as stuff. I view this as an important issue in
our constitutional history and an important issue to be debated
here.
Let me say that if the justice minister asked me for my opinion,
my view is that we should not appeal Rosenberg. I believe it is
the view of many of my colleagues on this high side of the House
that we should not appeal it. Quite frankly, I do not think it
has anything to do with whatever fears the hon. member may be
expressing implicitly in his statements.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today with pleasure to speak on behalf of the
constituents of Battlefords—Lloydminister on the motion that my
colleague from Calgary Centre has placed before this House.
I would like to take a moment to clarify something. The member
for Windsor—St. Clair read a motion in her debate and it
certainly is not what we are proposing today. Our motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, federal legislation should
not be altered by judicial rulings, as happened in the
redefinition of the term “spouse” in the Rosenberg decision,
and that, accordingly, the government should immediately (repeal)
that decision.
That is what our motion reads today; not the one that she came
up with.
I believe that all duly elected members of this legislature can
see the logic in the first part of the motion. We are sent here
by the voters of our respective ridings to represent their wishes
in this House and we all go through a lot of trouble to get here.
Occasionally we disagree on how to reflect those wishes, but when
we come up with legislation we expect that it is the best that
can be written and passed, once again by a majority of votes, and
that it will be acceptable to a majority of our electorate.
If we want to continue to fight against what we see to be bad
legislation, then we do so in public. Ultimately we stand for
re-election based on what the voter sees as our view of that
legislative program.
Of course, no law is perfect and for the purposes of reviewing
those laws and testing their fairness we have a judicial branch
whose job it is to uphold or strike down individual statutes.
Judges at various levels are asked to interpret laws as well, but
this means it is their job to define the meaning that the words
contained in the statute were meant to have, and only the
meaning.
Nowhere and at no time have judges ever been given the task of
putting words in that are not there now. Not only are judges not
elected by popular will, they are not chosen to write laws or to
create public policy with the potential to affect millions of
lives or dictate the expenditure of millions of taxpayers'
dollars.
Revolutions have been fought over the issue of the people being
taxed without representation, but in this country we seem willing
to ignore history; if not blatantly, we re-write it and hand over
authority to unelected individuals or groups who have their own
narrow agenda as their driving force.
The case we cited as an example of judges overstepping their
bounds involves the redefinition of spouse in the Income Tax Act,
but it has implications for hundreds of other statutes and
regulations as well. No doubt many commentators will read into
this example that Reform is on its high horse about the sanctity
of marriage and the restriction of family to certain approved
forms to the exclusion of others. This is a complex issue and no
one is suggesting here today that people should not be allowed to
choose how they want to order their lives.
The issue is whether or not judges have the right to impose on
all of society an interpretation of laws written by elected
representatives—and I stress elected—and debated openly in our
public forum here in this House. Where the interpretation
involves adding words that were never included in the statutes in
the first place is wrong. Canadians should be worried about this
growing tendency of courts to re-write legislation on the fly and
I would like to touch on some examples which have no doubt been
brought up already today.
Professor Ted Morton of the University of Calgary relates how
the Supreme Court of Canada struck down provisions in the
Elections Act that prohibited prisoners from voting, and it did
this not once but twice. In the first instance it disallowed a
blanket prohibition which may have been unfair to the odd
individual, but even after the act was amended to include only
convicts serving two years or more the justices felt that it
was unreasonable. The only thing unreasonable was the nonsense
being perpetrated on law-abiding Canadian voters by these
self-styled guardians of democracy.
As Professor Morton writes:
Giving prisoners the right to vote is not only bad policy but
also bad law—. To allow those who break the law to make the
law is an insult to all law-abiding citizens and devalues the
meaning of citizenship. It is for this reason that there is no
other nation where prisoners enjoy a constitutional right to
vote.
At a time when we are struggling to instil in our next
generation respect for the law and a sense of social and civic
responsibility, the beliefs and actions of this unelected elite
who supposedly represent the law itself are undermining all of
our efforts and their status as well.
1645
Another professor at the University of Western Ontario, Mr. Rob
Martin, writes in a recent issue of Law Times that it was
Justice Antonio Lamer who first invented the idea that judges
could read in what they feel to be missing from legislation. In
Dr. Martin's opinion, Justice Lamer has even suggested that he
and his colleagues could fill in gaps in the Constitution,
creating new institutions whenever they felt so inclined. A
little overstepping their bounds.
It must be clear to even the most hardened sceptic that the
practice of allowing judges to rewrite statutes, order public
money spent and change the very meaning of our language to suit
special interest agendas can only mean that parliament will
become unnecessary.
Society at large will be subject to the whims of a handful of
individuals meeting in private and handing down decisions without
ever having to justify themselves or those decisions.
Of course this is a worst case scenario and aside from having
lots of other institutions break down at the same time, one would
also have to believe that the individuals on the various judicial
benches all had some sort of evil intent. Far from it.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that is the case
here but let us also be clear that even good intentions can lead
to bad policies and bad decisions. As the old saying goes, the
road to hell is paved with good intentions, and some of these
judges just seem to want to get there and put in street lights
and traffic signs while they can.
I have read where lawyers are complaining that they not longer
have any idea what kind of decision is going to come out of a
high court proceeding. Maybe this is an indication that justices
have painted themselves into so many corners they cannot remember
if they are half way through painting the floor black or half way
through painting it white. These hints of confusion and
disagreement among the justices may explain some of the recent
decisions we have seen.
Look at the 1985 Singh decision or the more recent Halm decision
that together create a massive bureaucracy to handle refugees.
The irony is that according to Professor Morton, the UN had
regarded Canada's immigration system as one of the world's best
before the justices started to mess with the handling of
refugees.
Now we have massive backlogs, $179 million in extra expense,
millions going to a refugee industry run by lawyers, and thanks
to another supreme court decision we are forced to treat
convicted drug traffickers as choir boys. They are not guilty
here yet.
I suppose since the immigration minister herself has apparently
tossed the rulebook out the window regarding accepted convicted
criminals, perhaps the justices felt it was time to rewrite the
Immigration Act on behalf of Canadian people. We can see that
prisoner voting and the extraordinary rights of convicted
criminals as refugees in Canada form a pattern and the final
piece of that puzzle was supplied last year in the Feeney
decision. In that case a young man allegedly beat an old man to
death and returned to his trailer to sleep off a drunken stupor.
The police had every reason to believe they had found their man
and within the law as they understood it they could make an
arrest. They had probable cause. Not so, said the justices. A
warrant was necessary in that case although previously it had not
been.
We are not talking here about innocent people caught up in an
irresponsible system. It is not a question of presumed innocence
being abused but of law officers on our streets and in our
immigration system doing their jobs by the rules of law as set
out by parliament, the legislators.
When our police cannot count on the rules, how can they expect
the private citizen to respect and obey them? What tends to
happen is that police are discouraged and frustrated to the point
of taking matters into their own hands, leading to less liberty,
not more.
I have a final word about Rosenberg. It is true that the Reform
Party policy sets out that marriage exists as a union between a
man and a woman and subsequently that spouse refers to the
members of the opposite sex in that union, as the justice
minister herself has stated in her communique.
This is what the law has said for centuries and is what the vast
majority of the Canadian people believe and there are many good
empirical reasons why that definition should form the basis of
Canadian society for years to come. This is not exclusionary.
People are still free to choose. They still have rights. If it
is a question of how individuals are to share social programs to
reflect their lifestyles, then by all means we will look at the
benefits in a separate scenario. But let us do it here in this
House where the debates can be followed by every interested party
and where we can have input from a variety of viewpoints. We do
not have to redefine society to suit every individual if we can
simply redefine benefit.
I offer another quote from Professor Martin: “It is a principle
of our law that constitutional issues should only be raised as a
last resort. If a case can be resolved on non-constitutional
ground, then it should be.”
We must put an end of the knee-jerk reaction that suggests every
identifiable group is a victim simple in need of extra rights to
go along with the ones they already have.
1650
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciated the very succinct and thorough talk by my colleague
on this motion.
I was interested to hear him briefly refer to a document the
justice minister had written that clearly articulated her
position. I was looking at a quote from Hansard that
seemed to conflict with what the justice minister had said
according to the previous speaker.
If I understood the previous speaker, he was saying the justice
minister supports the current definition of spouse and marriage
and was willing to defend that in court. But when I looked
through Hansard there was a clear question asked on this
case to the justice minister and the answer we got back was along
the lines of the judiciary has the job to interpret and apply the
law. The two seem very contradictory to me. One is status quo
and one lets the courts do as they will.
I was wondering if my colleague would be willing to address that
issue and if he could offer some explanation as to why that might
be going on and maybe how a Reform government would approach this
issue.
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
When we referred to the justice minister and her statement
supporting the institution of marriage as it now stands, it was
in a letter regarding a constituent who wrote in with concerns
that Bill C-225, a private member's bill before this House, is
very timely.
The constituent supported that bill to the full letter of the
law and asked for the justice minister to support that bill as
well. In the letter back to the constituent, the justice
minister reiterated that under today's laws in Canada the
definition of spouse is the marriage of people of the opposite
sex and that she would continue to defend that concept of
marriage in court, if should be.
That is basically the premise of the motion today. It is to ask
the justice minister to appeal Ontario's decision in the
Rosenberg case to the highest court of the land, the supreme
court, and see it to its fruition. Let us get a little more
attention on this. Let us look at it through the lens of family
friendly regardless of our definition of family and get this
thing out in the open and have a long serious look at it. I
think we need to do that.
As to how a Reform government would approach this situation, we
are talking about moral issues here. In our blue book we propose
a matter such as this going to a binding referendum that would be
held Canada-wide. Let everyone out there have a say rather than
just the justices giving us direction or the parliamentarians who
may tend to skew their constituents' answers. We would ask our
constituents themselves to make the ruling on these types of
institutions.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member and I
want to know why the Reform Party continues to want to undermine
the charter of rights and freedoms. Why exactly is that?
It is fundamental to due process of law and the underpinnings of
fundamental justice that the courts need to have independent
power when it comes to enforcing the charter or it cannot protect
the equality of all citizens. We understand that and we know
that to be true.
I participated in the judges debate and I was amazed when one of
the Reform members actually suggested that a certain judge did
not deserve a pay raise because she did not follow Mosaic law.
Giving statements like that, I really wonder where the Reform
Party is coming from on these kinds of issues. Why does it
continue to try to undermine the charter of rights and freedoms?
Mr. Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, I guess we are down to the
issue of the chicken and the egg. What came first in Canada, the
laws or the courts? In our estimation, the laws had to come
first and the courts are there to interpret them. The justices
are asked to interpret those laws to the given cases before them,
but not to write the laws or to fill in the blanks that they feel
are missing. That is the fundamental difference in our
philosophy and theirs.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Lethbridge to speak to this motion.
The motion before is to stop federal legislation from being
altered by judicial rulings.
1655
It is not limited to the specific issue of spouse. Rather, this
motion has ramifications beyond that decision taken by the courts
in the Rosenberg case.
It is imperative that this House examine in depth the
implications of allowing the courts free rein over the rewriting
of laws, which is over and above the mandate subscribed to them
through democratic procedure.
By not appealing the Rosenberg decision, we are allowing the
courts to create public policy. I remind this House that the
judiciary is not an elected body
When we as members of Parliament are elected by our
constituents, we are elected on the basis of our platform, our
individual accomplishments in our communities and our dedication
to our constituents to uphold the democratic rule of this
country.
The fundamental role of writing law lies with the legislature.
As duly elected representatives, we are accountable to the people
of this country and to the will of the people. The motion before
us today is to appeal the Rosenberg decision because it violates
the democratic rule of parliamentary supremacy and supports the
controversial notion of judicial activism.
This Liberal government has remained conveniently silent on the
role of parliament and judicial activism. When judges start
acting like law makers, they have exceeded their legal authority
and their intended mandate.
When will the government appeal a decision saturated with
judicial activism and uphold the laws of this country? It is
imperative that the legislature create and write laws as dictated
by the will of the public. The will of the public has yet to be
heard.
The silence of the Liberal government speaks volumes. This
government has until June 22 to appeal this blatant example of
judicial activism.
Not appealing this recent decision can only be interpreted as
approving this action. If the Liberal government supports the
direction of the Rosenberg decision, it should still appeal the
decision and follow the correct channels if it wants to change
the definition of spouse.
Regardless of personal beliefs, one way or another, the essence
of this argument is founded in democracy. Either someone
respects the tradition of parliamentary supremacy or they do not.
If the Liberal government wants to rewrite laws in order to
include same sex spouses, that is for the legislature and not for
the judiciary to decide. This could not be more clear.
I urge my colleagues to rethink the strategy of leaving
legislative decisions in the hands of unelected officials. If
the will of the people dictates a change to the current
definition of spouse, the proper channel must be followed in
order to change the laws of this country. The ramifications of
not appealing a judge made law are enormous.
Is this an example of the gradual erosion of the very democratic
principles that have been upheld in this great country since
Confederation? Is this Liberal government prepared to take a
back seat to law makers while unelected judges rewrite laws
without any adherence to democratic tradition?
Will this Liberal government ever have the fortitude to stand up
to the judiciary and lay down the law once and for all? I am
sure every member of parliament realizes just how politically
difficult such a decision can be.
After examining the issue, we could choose to bury our heads in
the sand and refuse to address these difficult questions or we
can appeal the decision and return the issue into the hands of
the legislatures of this country.
When our constituents voted us in, they did so on the premise
that we would uphold the democratic principles of Canada. If the
government does not act to appeal the Rosenberg decision, we will
not be upholding democracy. We will be encouraging a judicial
activism free for all.
A government that refuses to tackle this difficult task while in
office is just not doing its job. We made a solemn promise to
our constituents when we were sworn into parliament.
Accountability is crucial.
When Canadians voted us in, they entrusted us to deal with
improving on Canada's existing laws and to rewrite laws when and
where necessary. Yes, there will be very difficult decisions to
make along the way but these decisions must be made. They must
be made in accordance with the rules and principles of democracy.
What this Liberal government will be doing if it chooses to
silently support this action is ignoring proper democratic
procedure and opting for the easy way out.
Yes, we will have vastly different opinions in this House on
this issue of the definition of spouse. Yes, the debate will be
full of conflicting opinions and beliefs, and it has been. Yes,
it is politically awkward and yes, the debate will filter down to
the constituency level. It is a debate that must occur in
parliament, even if it is politically inconvenient.
We were elected to deal with the simple and the tough issues all
the same.
It is a debate that must be held in the central legislature of
this country. We owe it to our constituents to uphold our roles
as law makers. It is imperative that this Liberal government
take a leadership role and stop shipping awkward political
questions to the judiciary for decisions.
1700
We must heed similar warnings coming from judges themselves.
Justice John McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal is on record
as saying:
We judges are now permitted, sparingly, to correct legislative
excess, but we should remain co-servants with the law makers in
the business of representative government and we should never
allow ourselves to evolve into their second guessing surrogates.
Yet judges seem to be moving, incrementally but steadily, from
the role of parliamentary defenders to that of its nemesis.
Straight from the mouth of the judiciary we have been warned by
the courts themselves. Consider this judicial notice for the
legislature to gets its priorities in order and get back to
legislating the affairs of this country.
If we do not appeal decisions that are blatant examples of
judicial activism we are sending a clear message to judges that
they can go ahead and act like law makers instead of
concentrating on their roles as the interpreters of laws.
The citizens of this country do not elect their judges to make
laws. That is what they elect us to do. That is precisely why
this Liberal government must respect the democratic principles of
this country and limit the far reaching effects of judges making
laws.
I urge the government and all political parties in this House to
say no to judge made law and to put the issue to debate in the
House where law making is supposed to originate. I call on the
government to openly state its position and return issues of
public concern to the forum for which debate is intended.
Difficult or not, we must maintain and uphold the democratic
principles of this country and put a cap on law making from
unelected judges. It is within this Liberal government's power
to do so and I urge it to adhere to the legal principles of this
country. The government has until June 22 to act responsibly.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been further consultations among the parties with regard to
this evening's session. I think you will find there is unanimous
consent for the following addition to the motion which I made
earlier about the House continuing this evening. I move:
That, at the conclusion of debate on any motion in amendment to
Bill C-30 at the report stage, a division shall be deemed to have
been put, requested and deferred pursuant to special order made
earlier this day.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—JUDICIAL RULINGS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find the member for Lethbridge's comments to be
totally incongruent. On one hand he talks about upholding
democratic traditions of Canada. The next thing we know he is
attacking the judges and wants to elect them like in the United
States.
Surely the member should recognize that the charters of rights
and freedoms has a very important role to play in our democratic
institutions. When he talks about upholding democratic
traditions of Canadians he should have some sensitivity to
minority rights.
I understand that the member's party since I have been in this
House has been continually attacking minority rights not for any
gains it might have but to try to divide Canadians and try to
politically profit from it.
We are no longer back in the traditional Bible days of the
Social Credit Party, nor are we back to the Bible hours conducted
by the leader of the official opposition.
1705
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that
these things are mentioned in that tone. I do not think it was
the Leader of the Opposition who had the radio program. I think
it was his father. He is very proud of that, as his father was
and as I am sure his children are.
After I was elected and before I came to Ottawa to be sworn in a
constituent asked me in my office what I felt the most important
part of my job was as a member of parliament. I told him I felt
the most important thing I could do was represent the wishes of
my constituents. I still believe that. He said that I was
wrong. He said that the most important thing I would do as a
member of parliament is create responsible legislation,
legislation that all our constituents will have to live under. He
told me I must do it with a great deal of thought and a great
deal of preparation.
I really took that to heart and it did somewhat alter my
priorities. It made me more aware of how important this part of
our lives is, being in the House, working on and preparing
legislation for the citizens of Canada to live by.
The fact remains that I am elected and I represent the people of
my constituency and the people of Canada. When I help to make a
law or when I support a law I am adding their voice to that law.
We must never lose the ability as legislators to prepare laws for
the people of Canada. If we feel or see it happening that the
judges of this land instead of interpreting and enforcing laws
are reading in items and changing the intent, we have to protect
against that.
If something in a law is not doing what it is supposed to do
then we should bring it back to this House for debate. That is
all we are trying to get to today. All this other ranting and
raving about whatever is not getting to the point.
The lesson well learned from a constituent was that law making
is very important and it is a big part of this job.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga
West.
I rise to address the motion before the House today. The member
opposite appears a bit confused about how our democracy works,
about the checks and balances put in place to ensure our system
of democracy is well protected. The simple truth is that the
decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding the Rosenberg
case is one of hundreds decided across Canada daily involving one
branch or another of the federal government.
It is a supreme irony that members of the official opposition
have focused so much attention on a decision of the Ontario Court
of Appeal while there are hundreds of others of great importance
they have chosen to ignore. This decision was recently rendered
by the Ontario Court of Appeal. It is my understanding that it
is being considered by officials and that in due course the
Attorney General of Canada in collaboration with her colleague,
the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the Income Tax
Act, will come to a decision as to how to best proceed.
I ask whether the hon. member is suggesting that all litigation
conducted against the Government of Canada at whatever court
level must be debated before this House. I would think not and I
would hope not. That would clearly be unworkable and would
prevent this House from carrying on the serious business of
government.
With respect to the suggestion in the motion that the judiciary
is overreaching its jurisdiction, let me clarify for members
opposite how our democracy works. The courts continue to play
their traditional and rightful role. As all Canadians know, the
courts have a legitimate role which they were given long ago when
our Constitution was first established. Our Constitution is an
important guarantee of democracy.
It is the Constitution that sets out the power of this
parliament and the power of the provincial legislatures. It is
for this reason that elections are mandated within a strict time
period and that the governor general is given a role as is the
Senate.
It is the legitimate important role of the courts as provided by
the Constitution to review any action taken by this House or by
the provincial legislatures. And that they do to ensure the
action was properly conducted by which I mean within proper
jurisdiction.
It would not do for the federal government to begin to legislate
in areas within provincial jurisdiction or vice versa, or outside
the limitations of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed
to all Canadians by the charter of rights and freedoms.
The fundamental importance of the balance of power set out in and
by the Constitution and the ability of ordinary Canadians to
challenge their government is part of what makes this country
what it is, a shining example of democracy and fairness.
1710
The courts have been tasked with interpreting the Constitution
and making decisions on behalf of all citizens. Sometimes that
role will require courts to point out to the government not only
where their actions are clearly outside of their authority but
where unintended consequences may potentially exist as a result
of legislation passed in good faith by the House. It is the
responsibility then of the courts to signal even those occasions
where there was no intention of acting outside of their authority
and where legislation was passed in good faith by the House.
Canadians understand and appreciate the need for governments to
balance the interests of all Canadians and to try to be fair.
After all, governments are elected by the majority, but in a
democracy their duty is to serve the interests of all Canadians.
Laws and the duty of government cannot responsibly reflect only
one vision of what is right or the debate would endlessly revolve
around who had the power to shape these norms and focus all
Canadians to live them.
This decision is not the first to bring to the attention of the
government that there is need to find some fair solution to an
important equality issue. The decision itself is not the end of
the story, as the hon. member well knows. What is most
intriguing is that he seems to object to the court as he sees it
assuming some of the role of parliament by changing the
legislation. But he is not suggesting that it should be the
House that does the job. Rather he suggests an appeal to another
court, this time the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a very
strange twist of logic indeed.
I assure the House that there is no such thing as judicial
legislation, although some alarmists have tried very hard
recently to convince us of the existence of this creature used
only by “radical judges” who are “out of control”.
Let me suggest rather that it is entirely more accurate to
understand that the courts are only playing the same role they
have always performed, that of reviewing government action and in
a few cases where they believe the answer is clear attempting to
help both the Canadians before them and parliament with a
suggested solution.
Again, the remedy chosen in this case that is written in is not
our preferred choice of remedy, but then again it is hardly
written in stone as some seem to believe. Even if the decision
is not appealed there remain a number of options open to the
House including legislating a solution, which is preferable to us
as long as that solution complies with the Constitution and in
particular with the charter of rights and freedoms.
As I see it, the courts and legislatures are still engaged in a
constructive dialogue in this area of the charter. Courts
interpret our constitutional principles and apply them to
legislation. If courts think legislatures have it wrong, courts
then will declare that provision invalid, but it will always
remain open to parliament to introduce a new law that meets the
concerns set out by the court.
Because of this the motion is simply inappropriate and shows a
lack of appreciation of how democracy works. There is no need to
interfere with the routine process with this kind of case or
these kinds of cases which have been handled within the
government system since Confederation. There is no need for
parliament to begin to discuss conduct of individual court cases.
Furthermore, it would be entirely inappropriate for parliament to
begin to comment on specific cases and decisions of the court.
Public confidence in the courts and in the justice system is
largely dependent on the independence of the judiciary. An
important element of judicial independence is the ability of
judges to make decisions free from interference. It is a
cornerstone of the Canadian democratic system and one well worth
noting. That freedom also includes freedom from interference by
parliament.
This motion, if passed, would represent a serious precedent for
interference with the judiciary in attempting to tell the courts
what kind of remedies they can and cannot order when a court
finds a provision unconstitutional. Instead we should leave this
decision, as we have hundreds of others, to the usual process.
Sociologists have pointed out that the variety of household
forms in today's society should perhaps be recognized in some way
by increasing flexibility to reflect all relationships of
economic dependency.
1715
Statistics show that one of the most common household forms for
people over the age of 65 is two siblings living together who may
well be able to afford an apartment only by combining income. In
the coming years some argue that government policies must
struggle with the values of Canadian society and with what kind
of society we want to have: a society that treats everyone as
individuals or a society that facilitates caring, as one
socialist has put it.
Certainly part of our stability as a nation comes from the
strength of our families. Families continue to be the foundation
of our nation, as acknowledged in this House and in all of the
homes of this great nation.
In summarizing what this motion means and what it represents, I
want to first point out that it is inappropriate in four ways.
First, the conduct of court cases by the government is within the
sole jurisdiction of the attorney general and this House should
not set a precedent by interfering with the mandate or with the
ordinary process of determining the appropriate action of a court
decision.
Second, this House should not set a precedent by beginning to
debate how each and every court case concerning the federal
government should be conducted. That would be absolutely
ludicrous.
Third, this House should not set a precedent which would appear
to Canadians to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.
If we do not agree with the court decision, the answer is not to
address the decision itself, but to determine other methods of
proceeding.
Finally, fourth, not only do Canadians not view this specific
court decision as the judges taking over, but they continue to
believe that the balance between the role of the courts and the
role of parliament is essential to the proper workings of
democracy.
I believe that after careful reflection most members of this
House will agree with the points I have made.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech.
Recently the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made an
appeal to the supreme court on a specific case involving an
Ontario court decision concerning a young woman who is being
deported whose children were born in Canada.
Is the hon. member indicating that the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration is interfering with the correct process by making
an appeal to a higher court? That is in fact what he seems, by
logical conclusion, to be stating in that particular line of
reasoning in his debate. I find that quite surprising.
What seems to be at the nub of the issue here is that government
members misunderstand the fact that the judiciary in this
particular case, as well as others, is reading a new meaning into
the law that was not there previous to this new interpretation in
this finding.
I would like the hon. member to comment on this. When the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration makes an appeal because
that particular case would set a precedent that would affect
other cases, does he not feel that is the similar process that
should occur in this case? There is a direct contradiction. I
would like the hon. member to address that.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member,
I want to simply point out that I think he is missing the point.
It is certainly the minister's prerogative to appeal. It is, in
fact, the process and is within her rights and the laws set out
in Canada.
I really find it disheartening to hear the Reform members
flip-flop in terms of supreme court and other judges' decisions.
I was surprised to read a May 7, 1996 press release issued by the
Reform member for Prince George—Peace River, entitled “Kids Win
in Supreme Court Ruling”, in which he applauded the court for
upholding the rights of non-custodial parents. Even the leader
of the Reform Party got in on the act and made political hay in
this case.
My point is that when it suits the members opposite they will
use it and when it does not they will not. Canadians see through
this kind of hypocrisy all too well. It is just simply part and
parcel of the kind of nonsense that we get from members opposite.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is very simple.
1720
Do the members opposite not understand the difference between a
case in which the court upheld the law and a case in which a
judge writes words into the law that did not exist before? Do
they not see the difference? None of you have demonstrated any
understanding of that simple concept all day long. Do you not
see the difference between a judge determining if a law is
constitutional or not and writing new law in that was never
intended or meant to be there by this parliament? Do you not see
the difference?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the member
for Waterloo-Wellington responds, I remind members to address
each other through the Chair.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member
opposite, I simply want to say that yes we do understand the
difference. We understand the basis of this great country, the
democracy that underpins it and the foundation on which we build
day after day.
What they fail to see is that there is a real danger in
interfering in the independence of judges. More to the point, we
cannot interfere with the independence of the judiciary. I am
amazed that the members opposite would do that.
In fairness, it is part and parcel of their approach to
negativity and fearmongering which they are very able and very
capable of doing this. That is too bad.
The member opposite said something about getting on their high
horse. As usual they are on their high horse with that sort of
self-righteousness.
I say to them that this government continues to stand on the
foundation of the very democracy on which our Constitution was
built. We will continue to do that. It is the right and the
appropriate thing to do and Canadians respect that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am going to ask the member for Wild Rose not to have a heart
attack this afternoon during this debate.
This is really a three-part motion. The first part deals with
the Reform Party's attitude toward judges, how they are appointed
and what powers they should have. The second part deals with the
definition of “spouse” and the whole issue of—
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am sure you will agree that the comment just made by the member
opposite regarding the health problems that the member for Wild
Rose has are no part of this debate. It certainly served no
interest for him to make that comment. I would ask him to
withdraw it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It really is not a
point of order. It is not the role of the Chair to get involved
in discussions of this sort. It should go to the member for
Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to retract it.
It was not meant in any way to be cheap. It was simply in
reference to the last time we had a debate in this place when
that gentleman and I got fairly heated with one another.
Do not be too sensitive. I withdraw the remark. I agree that
it has no relevance here.
Let me go back to what I was saying. It is a three-part motion.
If the party was being in the slightest bit honest about what it
wants to attempt here it would not couch the initial part which
deals with its opinion that federal legislation should not be
altered by judicial rulings. Then it puts it together with the
definition of “spouse” in the Rosenberg decision. The third
part is about the right of appeal.
There was a bit of a Freudian slip by one of the members
opposite. When he was reading the entire motion, the Reform
member, and forgive me, I forget his riding, said on the third
part that the government should immediately “repeal”, not
appeal, the decision. The motion reads “the government should
appeal”. It is the member opposite who said, in a rather
interesting mistake, that the government should repeal the
Rosenberg decision. That mistake tells me a lot. That mistake,
and I assume it is a mistake and was not said intentionally,
really underlines the true feeling of the Reform Party, which is
that parliament should simply have the right when it does not
like a judge's decision to repeal it.
1725
It is astounding that the Reform Party, which so often wraps
itself in the veil of liberty and the protection of freedom for
all, would want to give any government, other than its own which
we know we will never see, that kind of power. Think about the
ramifications.
We could stand in this place and say we do not like a decision
that was made by any court in the land and if we could get the
support of enough of our colleagues we could overturn the
decision. It would lead to anarchy.
I do not like to use extreme terms because Reform members try to
pretend that when we do that we are painting them as something
they are not. But they are not thinking logically about the
impact of turning that kind of power over to a group of men and
women which could change every three, four or five years.
Look at the demographics of change now. We have what is
referred to as Canada's pizza parliament, with five different
parties. There are regional interests. The interests of the
people in the west are going to be different than the interests
of the people in Ontario. We all know that the interests of the
people who the Bloc purports to represent are different than the
interests of the majority in this place.
This system is based on the separation of parliamentary
procedure and the judiciary. To put them together would be very
dangerous.
In the United Kingdom I was talking to some British
parliamentarians not long ago who are looking at actually writing
a charter of rights. They do not have one. The people from
Westminster who founded the democratic parliamentary system do
not have a written constitution. This country had to go to them
to get its Constitution and they never had one. They do not have
a charter of rights. They are looking at putting one together.
The member opposite asked my colleague why we do not understand
that the judge is rewriting law. What they fail to understand is
that the judge is interpreting law. That is the judge's job,
based on the charter of rights and the Constitution. That is
what they get so excited about. They want good old “I will get
my six guns on and I am going to change the law”. That is what
they want. That is not the way this country has been built.
The Reform Party talks about power to the unelected. When it
comes down to judicial matters which require someone with
tremendous experience of the law to understand the impact they
will have on people, frankly, I have a lot more confidence in the
judges in this country than I do in members of the Reform Party.
To turn that kind of authority or power over to this place is
just not realistic.
We can debate the impact of certain decisions on society.
I mentioned that this motion was broken down into three areas.
The Reform Party would have judges elected the way they do in the
United States. That is not on. That is not the kind of policy
Canadians want. They do not want someone sitting at the bar
making a decision based on their chances of getting re-elected.
They want them sitting on the bench based on what the proper
decision is, based on the laws of this land, and based on
constitutional rights and the charter of rights and freedoms.
It is curious that they would wrap this issue of judicial
accountability into the issue of the definition of same sex
benefits or spousal benefits.
1730
I have never believed that one get rights because of sexual
orientation. I also do not believe one should lose them. I do
not believe the country is built on the principles of being able
to say because one is different one does not get this right and
someone else does. That is not what Canada is about.
In the simplistic mentality and jargon of members of the Reform
Party that is exactly the kind of system they would be creating.
If they were truly interested in reform of the judiciary, why
would they pick this decision instead of others?
I heard a member opposite talking about the immigration minister
having a right to appeal. That is exactly the point. The
minister has the right to appeal, not repeal but appeal, just
like Canadians. It is amazing. It makes us equal in this place.
We can appeal that decision. We can then change the law if we
want to write new law and it will be interpreted by the courts
based on that new law, our constitution and our charter.
I cite an example from the Daily Mail in London, England.
I referred earlier to the U.K. which has decided to change the
way it deals with fraud, people who commit fraud when trying to
get into the U.K. It has turned it around from some cases which
took 10 years to get through a judiciary process and otherwise to
doing it now in seven days. We can do that. Parliament has the
power to do that.
Judges make decisions about asylum seekers that a number of us
do not like. It has happened where members on this side of the
House do not like it any more than those on the other side of the
House. Should we simply say that is it and overrule the judge?
That would create an absolute catastrophe in a bureaucracy. It
would be a frightening scenario that would leave it to the
subjective minds of people who perhaps are going into an
election, are unsure of their footing and do not have a history
or knowledge steeped in the law.
This is dangerous. This is very dangerous ground. Reformers in
my view are doing nothing more than pretending to want to change
the judiciary while highlighting their concerns over issues
relating to sexual orientation. If we separate them and have
debate in this place on both issues I would have no difficulty,
but trying to cloud one with the other is less than dishonest. It
is hypocritical.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was very interested to hear the comments of the previous speaker.
When I listened to the arguments he so passionately put forward I
was concerned that he was skewing the issue. He was muddying the
waters. He was making it confusing for people. I would like to
clarify a few points and get his perspective on them.
The particular case we are bringing forward is just a
representative case. There are many others. I have a list of
them: the Feeney case, Delgamuukw, Eldridge, five or six
different cases I could go into details on. However this case is
a good illustrative example because the courts have added words
to the law in place that was approved by the House. The court
actually read in or added words. The hon. member knows how much
work goes into determining the exact wording of every piece of
legislation that comes through the House. We are concerned about
the reading in or addition of words.
I was confused when I listened to the member opposite. I
compared what he had to say to what I heard from other members of
his party say, in fact some of the leaders of his party. In the
last parliament, for example, the justice minister of the party
he is from said that we should not rely on the courts to make
public policy in matters of this kind, that it is up to
legislators and we should have the courage to do it.
1735
I fully endorse that statement as I think all Canadians do. That
same justice minister went on to say that the court should not
make policy or rewrite statutes, that it was the role of
parliament.
What happened in this case was that the court rewrote. It added
words. It is not a matter of interpretation or application. It
is a matter of writing legislation in the courts. Their own
minister clearly said the courts should not do it. Yet I sit
here incredulously listening to the member across the way telling
us that this is what the courts should be doing. I ask him to
please clarify.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, for a change I thought
that was a fairly thoughtful question from a member of the Reform
Party. I appreciate the question.
The point I am trying to raise is not to muddy the waters at
all. The point I am trying to make is that had they chosen the
issue of a judicial decision for debate on whether the
parliamentary prerogative should prevail over the judiciary, that
is one debate I think we could have in this place. I know where
I would come down. I would come down clearly on the separation
of the two houses.
However, they have tied it into the other issue. They are
acting like school boys in the fifties with a Playboy
magazine inside the textbook in the school and snickering. They
are tying it into the sexual orientation issue instead of dealing
with it on the basis that it should be dealt with.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While the member for Mississauga West may have taken a
Playboy magazine to school, I can assure you that none of
our members did. He should retain the exclusivity of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): And of course the
Speaker.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what that
was about except that they are awfully sensitive.
The point of the analogy is that they are taking a subject which
should stand in debate on its own merits, the role of the two
links of parliamentary procedure in the judiciary. Were they
putting it into a higher level of debate we could have a clear
debate and establish the different guidelines.
I know what Reformers want. They want shoot 'em up justice.
They want to elect their judges. They want the power to tell a
judge “If you don't do what we say we are going to fire you. We
are going to change your decision because we are elected and you
are not”.
I know what they want. It is not what Canadians want. Canadians
do not want their courts to make quick, bad decisions. They want
them to be well thought out and the government decision should
also be well thought out.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this supply day
motion.
Let me start out by saying that although I am not surprised I am
somewhat disappointed that some members of the Liberal Party have
lost sight of the issue we are debating today. They have chosen
not to put forward substantive debate backed up with sound
thinking but have resorted to slander and vicious attacks on
members of my party.
I point out particularly the Minister of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women who spoke earlier, the
member for Kitchener—Waterloo, the member for Windsor—St. Clair
and now most recently the member for Mississauga West.
If I had to choose a title for my debate today it would be just
who is running the country anyway. I chose that title because I
am often asked it as a member of parliament by constituents who
have become aware of a seemingly insane or idiotic judicial
decision been made somewhere in the country. The phone rings in
my riding and I hear from a mad constituent who is asking “What
on earth are you guys doing allowing judges to make decisions
like that? I thought parliament was running the country. Just
who is running the country?” That is the question which I think
supports the supply day motion today.
1740
In this supreme court decision we have a body of judges that was
given the power through the 1982 constitution to undermine laws
made in the Chamber. There was a time before the 1982
constitution when the House reflected democracy in a rather pure
form. Representatives who came to the House were sent here by
the people who elected them to represent the views of their
people.
As I understand it, that is what a House of Commons or a
parliament is for. Elected, accountable parliamentarians should
be able to come to the House to debate and truly represent not
only the people of their ridings but the overall feeling in
society. Perhaps that is where some Liberal members have become
confused. Maybe they have forgotten exactly what democracy is.
Through the constitution power and responsibility were passed on
to judges to undermine laws that have been debated and set in the
House. I accuse former Prime Minister Trudeau of making a
provision in the constitution that forever allowed parliament to
abrogate its responsibility to make decisions that may not be
seen as popular by some factions in the country. He simply
provided the tool through the constitution so that parliament did
not have to do anything but sort of maintain the status quo,
carry on and make decisions that can be called, at best, middle
of the road, fence sitting type laws. That responsibility was
given to the judiciary. It is wrong that judges should have the
power to say to parliament that they will rewrite the law and at
the stroke of a pen simply do that.
The case mentioned in the supply day motion today, the Rosenberg
case, is an example of that as the member for Dewdney—Alouette
pointed out so appropriately. This body of judges took a
standing law of parliament and did not make a recommendation that
in their opinion parliament should redress the particular law.
They did not say that. They did not recommend or come up with a
report that parliament should revisit and debate it. They
unilaterally made a decision to rewrite a law which affects the
lives of every Canadian living in the country. The judges
rewrote it. It was not debated in the House. It was made by a
small group of appointed, unelected and unaccountable people.
We as politicians, as representatives of the Canadian people,
simply cannot allow that to happen. We can allow judges to
interpret the law given their best judgment. We can allow judges
to carry out the laws that were laid down in the House. That is
their job. However we cannot allow judges to make new laws. That
is job of the House.
The fears pointed out by the member for Mississauga West about
how a majority of one party, a government, could simply run
roughshod over parliament and the people of the country is
actually a supportive position for a triple-E Senate.
1745
That House in a true democratic fashion should be elected. It
should have equal representation from all parts of the country,
even the areas that simply have rocks and trees and a few people.
It should be able to be effective in changing the views of this
House which is represented by population. I thank the member for
making our case on a triple-E Senate. If we got that, some of
the fears that this member had would not be present.
This is not an isolated case of judges making laws. As the
member for Calgary Centre pointed out, there are a number of
different cases and he pointed to the Feeney case. Here was a
case where the police were carrying out their job of catching the
bad guys—which I think is what they are there for—and bringing
them to justice. The supreme court ruled that they can no longer
carry out their job in this fashion. They can no longer go into
a place where they know there is substantive evidence to convict
unless they get a special warrant. This has thrown the whole
concept of police work into huge uncertainty.
This decision was made by a judge, not by this place. Not by
the Parliament of Canada. As a result of this judge's decision,
a person who was convicted of a savage murder is walking free. In
some fuzzy logic of a judge's mind, this decision was made.
The court in the Delgamuukw case has taken upon itself the
responsibility to deal with the aboriginal land claims in this
country. It has to be the Parliament of Canada that does that,
not a body of judges. The body of judges may make
recommendations to the Parliament of Canada and urge the
Parliament of Canada to deal with them. They cannot make
decisions themselves.
We can talk about the Singh case, the immigration case regarding
refugee hearings. This decision, made by an unelected,
unaccountable board, a group of judges, caused a huge upheaval in
the refugee system. It cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and
created an untold backlog of cases because the courts, the
judges, chose not to make recommendations but to change the law.
I hope the members opposite will see clearly the point of this
debate. The debate is that it is the Parliament of Canada that
must become and continue to be supreme in the law making of this
country.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on two occasions I have tried to have Liberal members elucidate
whether they understand the difference between judges ruling
whether or not laws are constitutional and judges actually
writing law and changing the meaning of laws in their decisions.
I have been very unsuccessful in having them explain whether or
not they understand that and furthermore whether or not they
agree with it.
I would like to ask the hon. member what position he feels
judges should have. Should they have the authority to simply rule
on the constitutionality of the law or should they be allowed, as
they have done in this case, to change the law and write new
meaning into the law?
1750
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the role of
judges is certainly not to rewrite the law. The role of judges
is to examine the Criminal Code as we see it, to examine the
Constitution as we see it and to make recommendations to the
Parliament of Canada as to their opinion as to whether there is
validity in the points of concern for them. They make
recommendations and urge the Parliament of Canada to consider
making changes in the areas that they feel are necessary. That
is the role of the judiciary in my opinion when it comes to the
Constitution and the Criminal Code.
We can never allow the courts of this country to make new laws.
That is our job. If we do not fulfil that responsibility, then
we should not be here.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened with great intent to my colleague and I
thank him for his speech.
The point I made earlier was that the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration is appealing a particular case. The reason I
would suggest she is doing that is because it would set a legal
precedent. That decision will set a legal precedent which then
again could affect other rulings in that particular area.
Here we have another example of this particular case affecting
legislation in the definition of spouse and perhaps the
redefinition of marriage.
I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the fact that
the Liberal government says one thing in one area, it takes a
specific action in appealing a particular case that will affect
law in one area, yet it does absolutely nothing. It seems as
though it does not even want this issue to be brought to the
forefront, underpinning the fact that judges are reading in a new
meaning to this particular law.
Could the hon. member comment on this contradiction, this lack
of action in one instance when there is action in the other
instance? How does he think the government might be able to
explain this contradiction?
Mr. Dick Harris: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think it
is very irresponsible of this government, of any government, to
take a position of picking and choosing which court decisions it
is going to challenge.
In every law of this country that is changed unilaterally by a
judicial board or a supreme court, if in their decision they
rewrite the law, it is the obligation and responsibility of the
government of the day, whatever government it is, to challenge
that rewriting of the law. The government must say clearly to
the courts “In case you have forgotten, it is not your position
to rewrite the laws. It is our position. Therefore we will take
up the challenge. We will challenge that decision. In fact, at
the end of the day when we have successfully won that challenge,
we will then take your decision as a recommendation and an urging
for us to deal with it in the House of Commons and the Parliament
of Canada”. That is the position the government should be
taking.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me pleasure to speak to this supply motion today.
I would like to say first off that the Liberal member for
Mississauga West need not worry too much about my heart. It is
pretty strong. In fact, I am sure it is going to be around a lot
longer than this Liberal Party. There is pretty good evidence of
that because of the attitude we have heard today coming from that
side of the House. It was the same attitude which existed in the
35th Parliament and guess what. There was a whole section of
Liberals over there and poof, they are gone. So just keep it up.
It will not be long. I know my heart will be around when the
rest of them are gone.
I do not know how many times I have been asked the question in
my own riding and at other times when we go around to other parts
of the country by people who are quite concerned and they say to
me “Why are the courts making the laws? Is that not what we
sent you to parliament for, to make the laws? Why are the courts
making the laws?”
My colleague from Calgary Centre gave a whole list of examples
of where that has happened.
The only reason the Rosenberg decision is in the supply day
motion is that it is the most recent case where there is another
example of the court changing the law arbitrarily with this House
not having anything to say about it.
1755
People out there in Canada believe that when they pay good money
to individuals to run the country that whoever is doing it should
be accountable to them. I always believed that and I am sure you
did, Mr. Speaker, before you came here. Taxpayers believe that
the people they pay, including those in the courts, should be
subject to some sort of accountability for the big bucks
taxpayers pay.
Canadians ask who is running the country and who is making the
laws. Their other question is to whom are those people
accountable? Unfortunately my answer has to be no one. Under the
present system they are not accountable to anyone.
I do not think for a moment that there is anyone in this House
or from my side of the House from this party who would deny for a
second that the expertise of people who understand our
Constitution and the laws that go along with it should not be
there to make absolutely certain that what we do is according to
what the law of our land, the Constitution including the charter
of rights, intended. There is no doubt about that.
When a piece of legislation that needs change comes into
question, I believe and I think most Canadians believe that the
change has to be made in this House. Then they have the
opportunity to hold us accountable in the next election. At least
one day every four or five years Canadians get to exercise their
democratic right to send the message that they are or are not
pleased with our performance and what we are doing. When
taxpayers do not have the opportunity to do that because
something is arbitrarily done through judiciary activism, they
get a little upset, and I do not blame them.
We are bringing this before the House today to try to get this
government to understand we need to have a little better
understanding of what the taxpayers of Canada truly want. They
want good representation. They want people to be accountable for
the big bucks and we know they are big bucks. We are number one
in the developed nations in terms of taxes. They want to know
where their money is going and whether it is producing what they
would like.
I am quite certain now that the court has written a redefinition
into a piece of legislation regarding the word spouse without
going through this House there will be some upset people. I
certainly hope they let those members over there know it. When
that decision was made I certainly found out in a hurry, as did
my colleague from Prince George. People do pay attention to what
is going on. My phone started ringing and letters started
coming. That is why not too long after that decision, I made a
member's statement in this House regarding that very thing. I
was trying to put forward the voice of the people.
The government has an obligation to defend its stated position
on the definition of spouse. We have the obligation to defend
what we had in place. If an appeal fails, then bring the issue
before parliament to debate it and settle it in a democratic
fashion. I do not understand what is wrong with that. That is
what we are supposed to do, debate, make the law. We can even
show our appreciation to the courts for calling to our attention
that the legislation is not properly done and that it needs to be
changed. Let us do our job here. The courts are not supposed to
do it for us. I did not think that was the case.
1800
The former justice minister, now the health minister, said while
defending the need for Bill C-33 “We should not rely on the
courts to make public policy in matters of this kind. That is up
to legislators and we should have the courage to do it”. I could
not agree with the minister more.
I do not always agree with this gentleman but that was one
statement that he was right on. That statement was something I
thought these people across the way would have accepted as being
real good common sense. It came from that side.
We are currently on the clock. The deadline for the government
to appeal this is June 22. It is clearly a judge made law. It
rewrites a major federal statute and is of a timely nature. This
decision must be appealed immediately.
I do not understand why the courts decided to read in a same sex
definition when parliament has already said no. During the 35th
parliament Motion No. 264 proposed the legal recognition of same
sex spouses and was defeated by a vote of 52 to 124. Out of
those 124 votes many of them came from that side. They had to or
it would have never been defeated.
Why the flip-flop? What is going on? Out of the blue this
becomes okay but in the last parliament it was defeated soundly.
It took every party of the House to do that.
This is something I know Canadians across the land are quite
concerned about. I know this because of the question that was
asked of the member from Prince George at town hall meetings, who
is running this country, the courts or us. We must recognize
that is being said. We must recognize that people are concerned
about this and we must do our duty. We have a major task to do
and we should live up to it.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
really enjoyed the member's comments. They are always straight
to the point, refreshing and very clear.
I know a bit about the member's riding, about how much he is
appreciated in his riding and how much the people in his riding
respond to him personally, to his approach and to how well he is
respected by the people there and his personal commitment to
represent those people in this House.
I think the House should be interested to hear the voice of the
people of Wild Rose. What would those people say? What are
their concerns? What would they say about this motion and
judicial activism or whatever we want to call it in general? Let
us hear the voice of the people of Wild Rose on this issue if we
could.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that
initially when I made the member's statement I mentioned a while
back following this case a number of people phoned, wrote, faxed
and E-mailed to thank me for bringing the issue before the House
because it was something they were wondering what was going on
and they were concerned about it.
There were not a large number of them because a lot of people do
not really pay that much attention to what does go on.
Unfortunately for this country there are too many people out
there who do not pay enough attention. However, those who did
were quite pleased that it at least was brought forward. They
did not even comment on whether they objected to the decision or
not.
I think the major thing they were concerned about, and I believe
it is a logical one, is who is running the country. Are the
courts making the decisions and running the country or is
parliament? That is a fair question.
1805
I know the people over here hear the same questions and comments
lots of times, if they would just admit it, live up to it and be
willing to do their duty.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Wild Rose how he
feels about governments using the court system.
The Soviet Union had a dictatorship for a long time and what my
mother always told me is at the start before the revolution the
government used the courts to put people into prison. Once they
had control of the government, they had the revolution. Then the
dictatorship did away with the courts altogether. We have seen
that happening the same way in some third nation countries. I am
wondering if he has any fear of that happening here. I would
like to hear his thoughts on that.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the history of the
tragedies that took place in that land over those years is indeed
tragic. Rather than direct my answer to that situation and how
it compares to today, I simply say that we live in the greatest
country in the world. There is no doubt about that. I know the
Liberals agree with me. But we have to stop all the silliness
like you had better calm down or you will have a heart attack,
blah, blah, blah, and genuinely look at what is going on and take
a look at history, because history is valuable.
Look at some of the things that have happened in the past. What
can we do in this place that will prevent any tragedies from
occurring in the future? What can I do here that is going to
make my four grandkids live in a better country than we have
today? What can we do for their future?
All we have to do is stop all the nonsense and realize we are
the top court of the land and the people are expecting us to
maintain this place in a fashion that will make this country the
greatest we could ever imagine. That is what I want to do. I
object to all the nonsense that goes on in that regard.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on first reading today's motion my reaction was of
pleasant surprise. It appears to raise an issue of Canadian
governance that is both philosophically important and publicly
current. That was on quick first reading. But a moment's
reflection reveals that the motion has serious problems and does
not deserve our support. In fact, there is more than a bit of
the old Trojan horse in the hon. member's proposal, not to
mention some contradictory logic.
First, by focusing on the Rosenberg decision involving pension
benefits for same sex couples, the opposition raises disturbing
questions about what its real agenda is here. Is it the defence
of parliamentary prerogative that is actually at issue for it?
Is Reform saying appeal because it does not like the judicial
process involved? Is it the application of the charter of rights
and freedoms by a court that it objects to or is it really its
dislike of the fact that a court has decided that same sex
couples qualify as spouses under the Income Tax Act and that the
government may decide to accept the consequences for existing
income tax legislation?
There is a second reason why the House should reject this
motion. As I said a minute ago, there is a distinct whiff of
self-contradiction here. The motion clearly suggests that
judicial rulings are pre-empting the government's ability and
authority to govern. But surely that same ability and authority
must rest on government's having the opportunity and obligation
to deal with issues in a considered, comprehensive manner.
Courts should not carelessly rush to judgment and neither should
governments. It makes for bad law and much worse national
leadership.
That is not an attribute that this opposition seems to appreciate
or apply, be it on social values or national unity.
1810
Let me remind the House that the government does have until June
22 to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
of Canada. Our government is considering the implications of the
Rosenberg case. We will take as much of the time available as we
need because only that way do we have the best chance to ensure
and give Canadians the confidence that our decision is in the
best interests of the country and all its citizens. That is how
a country should be governed. We will not be pushed to judgment
and risk enshrining intolerance or a partisan whim.
I have no trouble speaking against this motion. It has nothing
to do with the important issue of the balance between legislative
authority and the obligation of Canada's courts to apply the
charter of rights when required. Clearly this balance is not
always an easy one. I will listen with great interest to members
of all parties who can bring real legal and philosophical
expertise to the debate when and if the opposition lets that take
place.
Maybe I can help today's debate become more than a typical
opposition grandstand by doing what I can to encourage a
different balance here today, a balanced understanding of
background to the Rosenberg issue.
At question is a recent ruling by the court of appeal. It found
that the charter of rights requires that employer sponsored
pension plans offering benefits to same sex partners be accepted
for registration for income tax purposes. The courts remedy
reads same sex partners into the definition of spouse in the
Income Tax Act for this purpose.
In other words, it means that the judgment effectively amends or
overrides the tax act definition of spouse which limits
entitlement to a spouse of the opposite sex. Let us be clear
about something. As it stands, the court's decision applies only
to determined eligibility for pension survivor benefits. It does
not affect the definition of spouse for other purposes in the
Income Tax Act.
It should also be noted that this judgment does not require
employers to include survivor benefits for same sex partners in
the package of pension benefits they provide to their employees.
Nor do current rules prevent them from doing so. What the
judgment does require is that when an employer does offer such
benefits, the pension plan must now qualify under the Income Tax
Act to be registered and to receive the same tax treatment as any
other registered plan.
There is nothing arcane or ominous about this tax treatment of
registered plans. Any pension plan registered for tax purposes
simply receives beneficial tax treatment similar to the treatment
enjoyed, for example, by anyone who holds an RRSP. Contributions
to such a pension plan by employers and employees are tax
deductible. The contributions made by employers are not treated
as taxable benefits to the employee and there is no tax on the
investment income earned by the plan. Instead this tax is paid
when funds are withdrawn from the plan normally as pension
amounts paid to the employee after retirement.
I said earlier that the Rosenberg decision relates only to the
registration of pension plans. There is no question that the
decision, as it now stands, could have significant implications
for other provisions of the Income Tax Act and could extend to
other legislation. To begin with, provisions such as the tax
free transfer of RRSP balances to a surviving spouse are parallel
in function and logic to the survivor benefits provided under
pension plans. Amendments to these rules would need to be
considered. Beyond this is the question whether the logic of the
Rosenberg judgment should be considered to apply to other tax
provisions that provide benefits to married and common law
heterosexual spouse.
There are literally hundreds of provisions related to spouses in
the Income Tax Act. Such benefits include the spousal credit,
the transfer of unused credits, including the age credit, pension
income credit, disability credit, education and tuition fee
credits, and the ability to contribute to spousal RRSPs. These
are benefits provided to Canadians under the Income Tax Act. We
should also recognize that the act contains many provisions that
impose obligations on spouses as well.
These include the requirement to combine incomes for purposes of
income tested refundable tax credits such as the GST credit and
the child tax benefit, limiting couples to one principal
residence only, the income attribution rules and the extension to
related persons of restrictions applicable to significant
shareholders.
1815
Clearly it would be difficult to justify extending only the
benefit conferring provisions of the ITA to same sex partners and
not the provisions that impose obligations. The result would be
a tax system that systematically advantaged same sex couples over
married and common law couples. In contrast, the existing rules
do not systematically favour one group over another since those
who qualify as spouses are exposed to a balanced mixture of
benefits and obligations.
This leads to another interesting point. If all the provisions
of the ITA that relate to spouses were extended to apply to same
sex partners, it is not at all clear that the same sex couples as
a group would be net beneficiaries of the change. Although data
do not allow precise estimates I understand that work done by the
Department of Finance suggests that if we modify the current
rules to treat same sex couples in the same way as married and
common law couples for all purposes of the ITA it would actually
result in a small annual aggregate net financial loss for same
sex couples.
The result is that the gain to the government in lower benefits
under provisions like the GST credit would exceed the additional
revenue cost of benefit conferring provisions like the spousal
credit. We fully appreciate that the question of recognizing
same sex partners in government legislation must not be limited
to questions of financial advantage or disadvantage for the
individuals concerned or for the government.
It is proper and useful to debate such a topic. The balance of rights and
obligations for spouses under the ITA is not a win-win
situation. The issue of how some same sex partners are treated
by the tax system is not simply one of denial of benefits
available to other Canadians.
We all know that opposition members, especially those of the
official opposition, likes to reduce things to issues of black
and white. It allows them to thunder and thrash with great
emotion. Anyone who has real passion for good governance and its
fundamental basis in human rights, social justice and tolerance
knows that effective decision making demands the application of
both head and heart, which means considering all aspects of an
issue. That is what our government is doing because that is the
real way of doing things. That is the fair way and that is the
logical way. That is why the principled response to the motion
is to reject it. When they are willing to engage in open and
honest debate the House should listen, but for the motion the
only response possible is to send it to defeat.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question based on the very last sentence of the hon. member.
She said when this party, referring to Reform, is ready for
honest and open debate they were ready to listen. That is the
whole point. It did not get to the House. The whole point is
that the courts made the decision on behalf of Canadians without
consulting Canadians and without consulting their elected
representatives in this place.
I would say yes, let us do it. Let us debate the issue. Let us
talk about whether we are ready in society to allow an appointed
court to start making rules and regulations which govern our
lives without reference to what Canadian people are ready to
support. That is the crux of the issue. The member's comment
would be much appreciated.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member
opposite was listening right to the very end. I always find it
interesting that the Reform Party wants to consult. I think
consult is the buzzword. They should become the party of
consultation rather than the party of reform.
One thing that would be most difficult would be for any of us to
consult intimately with every constituent. Often our job as the
governing party and as members of parliament is to consider
issues in great depth and to make decisions based on what is best
in consultation with people. It is not a ritualistic thing.
It is also very difficult to take the knowledge of a very
learned body like the supreme court and try
to impart it to every citizen in the country and then consult to
see what they would like to do.
If we consulted every Canadian in Canada we would often find they
want us to do something based on incomplete knowledge, incomplete
facts or a lack of expertise. It would be very interesting to
let Reformers run the country for about a day to see what they
came up with. They would not have the time to do all the
consulting they would like to do.
1820
I believe we have very learned people appointed to the positions
of judges. They have a body of knowledge that they take to those
positions. They make learned decisions based on information that
the Canadian public and members of the House would not be able to
do.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
does the hon. member think that judges should have the authority
to write or rewrite legislation to change the law? Does she
think their role should be not only to rule on the
constitutionality and the applications of law but to change the
meaning of laws and to write laws? A simple yes or no answer
would suffice.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, if I ever got a simple
yes or no question I would probably be able to do that.
The judges are basing their decisions on upholding the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. They are not being told to rewrite it.
They are being told to read it, understand it, become expert at
it and make decisions based on it. I do not think they are being
told to change the laws. They are being told to interpret based
on protecting the most fundamental document in Canada.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to the debate throughout the day and it
has become clear now through what this member has just stated
that there is a certain belief on the government's part about
this idea of intellectual elitism.
We recognize that our supreme court justices or justices across
the land are learned people who are working hard to do their job.
They have opinions and perspectives. However what the hon.
member just stated in her comments was that decisions by judges
should override the majority of people in the country.
I am wondering if she is exerting the fact that individuals
should be quiet, not raise any issues at all, but simply leave
things in the hands of the judiciary, a group of unelected
officials however learned. Is she telling the people of Canada
that they should sit down and we will take care of everything?
Is she saying that we know better, that the learned people in
society know better, and that we should reject the common sense
of individuals and not allow them the opportunity to debate
important issues?
I am wondering if that is what she is purporting because it is a
thinly veiled argument. It is becoming very clear in her
comments and those of other members of the government that that
is at the hub of their belief of the Canadian electorate. As the
minister for multiculturalism stated, it is the tyranny of the
majority, in fact the majority that elected the Liberal
government. Is that what they are indicating on that side?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I have been in several
levels of government and I always find it fascinating that there
is no prequalifying test to run for election. Walking and
chewing gum at the same time is the basic level to get elected.
I find it appalling the member opposite would feel something as
important as the laws of the land could be the subject of common
debate, that anyone is an expert on it. If he had a very severe
pain in his internal organs would he call in for consultation a
group of people from the streets of Ottawa to say “Let us try to
find out what is wrong with you?” He would call in a medical
practitioner who has been trained to analyse the situation.
Judges and lawyers go through a very stringent process. People
become judges when they have qualified by understanding the laws
and being able to show good judgment, which is something we do
not always see from members opposite.
1825
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I did not get a simple yes
or no answer to my question. I guess the hon. member felt that
my question was wordy, so allow me to try to shorten it.
Should judges have the authority to add new meaning to laws in
their rulings?
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not have a lot of time left to engage in the debate, but there
are a couple of comments I would like to add to the debate that
has been going on in the House.
From my point of view it is unfortunate that the subject of
judicial activism and how the supreme court is writing things
into Canada's laws has to be tied to the subject of redefinition
of spouse. Probably that was inevitable, simply because that
area of judicial activism is the most blatant example of the
courts—
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find consent for
the following motion:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Standing Orders, for
the remainder of this session, motions pursuant to Standing
Orders 57 and 78(3) shall not be receivable by the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to propose the motion at this time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—JUDICIAL RULINGS
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, after that interruption
I will try to resume where I left off.
I regret that the issue we are now debating is tied into
redefining the word spouse in law. If we go as far back as when
Mr. Trudeau, the icon of Liberal ideology, introduced the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms in Canada he specifically and quite
clearly chose to leave out of the charter the whole subject of
sexual orientation. The intent of the law that he introduced was
extremely clear. On top of that, on a number of occasions
parliament chose to support the existing definitions of spouse
and marriage.
The intent of parliament when it comes to the law was extremely
clear. The former minister of justice and the current minister
of justice have clearly expressed their support for the existing
definition of spouse.
That is why we chose this case on which to raise the issue of
judicial activism. While I support and respect the wisdom of the
courts and the wisdom of the judges, that is the exact role given
to them when the charter was introduced. They were to examine
very carefully every issue that came before them in light of the
charter and to make recommendations to parliament if in their
view the issue before them did not comply with the charter.
Nowhere—and I have heard this over and over again in the debate
today—was the court given the mandate or the instruction to
write into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues that were
clearly contrary to the will of parliament. That is the basis of
what we are debating today.
All kinds of strawmen have been thrown up over the issue to try
to deflect the argument away from what we are talking about and
to try to imply some ulterior motive which does not exist.
1830
I was amazed at the outrageous comments the member for
Mississauga West made, suggesting somehow that it would be truly
dangerous to the country and to our system of democracy to give
the supreme power to the elected parliament in this country. That
amazes me. How can it be dangerous to invest the supreme power
in an elected body that is accountable to the people every four
or five years but yet it is not dangerous to allow that power to
exist in an unelected, unaccountable small group of individuals?
I simply do not understand the reasoning there at all.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to
inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now
proceed to consideration of orders of the day.
* * *
[Translation]
MI'KMAQ EDUCATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-30, an act
respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation
to education, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: There are two motions in amendment on
the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-30, an act
respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation
to education.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-30, in Clause 7,
be amended by replacing lines 24 to 28 on page 2 with the
following:
“7. (1) A community shall, as far as possible, provide
or make provision for primary, elementary and secondary
educational programs and services for members of the community,
wherever they reside in Nova Scotia.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 before us was referred, of
course, to committee. Unfortunately, in committee, we were not
completely ready to introduce certain amendments. The
discussions had to be reread. Finally, after talks with the
Nova Scotia chiefs, it was agreed to introduce the amendment
before us today.
I would point out that there is a difference between the bill as
written and the amendment now before us.
The difference is this: following an agreement with the
Mi'kmaq, the bill provided that all education services on
Mi'kmaq reserves in Nova Scotia were to be solely for residents
of the reserve.
1835
I put a few questions to the officials who appeared before the
committee and discovered that it was limited to those on the
reserve solely for monetary reasons. I decided to see if the
services could not be extended to all Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq.
There is a major problem in Canada right now concerning
off-reserve Indians. There is a frequent tendency towards this
sort of agreement entitling those on the reserve to certain
services. Now, almost 40% and even 50% of status Indians live
off-reserve. These people are being told they will not be
entitled to services.
I became aware of the problem several years ago, and this is
perhaps the first time there has been a really specific example,
a bill that excludes off-reserve Indians.
Members need to understand why people do not live on a reserve.
Often, it is not by choice. Right now, for example, there is a
terrible lack of housing on reserves. On certain reserves we
visited, it was not unusual to see two or three generations, 15
or 16 individuals, living under the same roof. There are limits
to overcrowding. Since the limit is often reached, these people
are forced to leave the reserve and live elsewhere.
I think, however, that the government has certain
responsibilities with respect to these people. The government's
approach to off-reserve Indians is unfortunate. It is not even
the same minister defending their interests.
Given that the government has a fiduciary responsibility for the
aboriginal peoples, a terrible injustice is being done to the
people who live off reserve. It is important to expand
educational services to the Mi'kmaq living off reserve as well.
We have before us an agreement signed by some ten
communities—four have yet to sign—and of these ten communities
that have signed, there are probably 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 people
living off reserve in Nova Scotia unable to take advantage of the
educational services to be given the Mi'kmaq.
As I was saying, this has become very important to me in recent
years and this is the first specific application I have had to
demonstrate it. I am sure the head of the alliance of natives
living off reserve would support the proposal before us.
I invite all my colleagues in the House to do the same.
There is an impact, however. If there were no amendment to the
agreement before us, $150 million would be given to the people
living on Mi'kmaq reserves. With the amendment, we are asking
the government to improve the agreement. This agreement, worth
an estimated $150 million, could be valued as high as $200
million, because it is important that we treat all status
aboriginals with a valid card equitably.
As I was saying earlier, it is not because people want
absolutely to live off reserve. On the contrary, people
consider this new agreement, the new bill under consideration,
provides an extraordinary opportunity to take control of
education. God knows how important education is in a society.
It is education which makes it possible to teach the culture and
the language.
Aboriginal people are increasingly concerned about cultural and
language issues, and developing language skills is an extension
of their culture. This is important in today's context, after
nearly a decade of denial of their jurisdiction over cultural
and linguistic matters.
The government must not seize this opportunity to vote in favour
of the amendment, without giving an inch on the matter of the
$150 million, because doing so would just add to the services to
be delivered by the Mi'kmaq and would of course take away from
service quality. The regulations and the agreement have $150
million set aside for them. This must not be an excuse for
letting another 5,000 or 6,000 Mi'kmaq join the agreement
without changing the budget provided in the original agreement.
1840
To me, it is obvious that this change must lead to enhancement
of the agreement. As I have already said, I invite my hon.
colleagues to solve the problems of those living off reserve for
once and for all.
We must avoid clauses that say that on reserve aboriginals are
included, but there are no longer any obligations toward those
who have left. Where are these obligations? Where are the
people who have left? Sometimes they move to other communities,
but sometimes they simply end up on the street. I am told that
half of Ontario's aboriginal people are in Toronto, and in some
cases are among Toronto's homeless.
Municipal and federal governments therefore have to deal with
them. I think that the federal government's fiduciary duty
should include everyone.
It is too bad that the government makes a distinction and that
on reserve and off reserve Indians are not looked after by the
same minister. In my view, this is a clear indication that the
government wants to be relieved of its fiduciary obligation
towards Indians. This is not right.
I think it had a chance, with this bill, to introduce a motion
to attempt to correct just one aspect, that of education for the
Mi'kmaq. This form of discrimination seems to crop up
everywhere. But when there is a opportunity like the one today
to eliminate discrimination by ensuring that there is a bill
that covers them all, I think it should be seized.
On reserve Indians, who are often represented by the Assembly of
first nations, often tell themselves that they must at least
hang on to part of the pie. What often happens is that, once
these decisions are taken, off reserve Indians are simply
forgotten; they are not entitled to the same services as the
others and end up being discriminated against all the time.
I therefore urge the government to truly fulfil its fiduciary
role toward all status Indians who are normally covered by the
legislation, but who, because their place of residence is
different, are told that their rights will be ignored and that
they are not entitled to the same services as the others.
The purpose of the amendment before us is to correct this
situation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favour of the
motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise this evening to speak against the amendment by the member
for Saint-Jean which is phrased in Motion No. 1. I suggest that
this motion not be accepted.
It seems that Bill C-30 is an historic piece of legislation that
returns control over education to the Mi'kmaq First Nations in
Nova Scotia. Bill C-30 has great support among first nations,
the province of Nova Scotia, educational institutions in Nova
Scotia and strong support of many members of this House. The
Mi'kmaq people wish this legislation will pass quickly so they
may begin to develop education programming for their people.
Members should be aware that this motion as it is put by the
member for Saint-Jean deals with the issue of education off
reserve. As such, it is encroaching on provincial constitutional
jurisdiction for education throughout Nova Scotia. We on this
side of the House believe that we should not impose federal
legislation as an intrusion into an area of provincial
jurisdiction without significant consultations with the Mi'kmaq
and with the Government of Nova Scotia.
The issue of off reserve education must be dealt with in
negotiations with other parties. It cannot be unilaterally
imposed in federal legislation. Moreover, we cannot agree with
the proposed amendment as it is contrary to what was negotiated
in the agreement with the Mi'kmaq and with Nova Scotia. Accepting
the amendment proposed by the hon. member would require the
renegotiation of the agreement. First nations are not funded to
provide programs and services to members wherever they reside off
reserve.
As such, it would impose a difficult burden on Mi'kmaq First
Nations to provide such services.
1845
The participating Mi'kmaq First Nations want to proceed with
their preparations to restore education jurisdiction to their
communities. I urge all members not to support this amendment,
but to move ahead with the bill as it was supported by the House
of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to speak against the motions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois,
and the reason that I will be speaking against these motions is
because they fundamentally do not change the principle of the
bill. It is the principle of the bill which the Reform Party has
great difficulty with.
Behind the principle of the bill is the notion that aboriginal
or other people require separate, exclusionary education in order
to be successful in life. When the federal government brings
forward legislation like this, what is the government saying? Is
it saying that the Mi'kmaq children cannot obtain a proper
education in the public school system? If that is what it is
saying, then indeed we are all in trouble because the public
school system is the system that provides an education for most
Canadian children. If that system is failing in any way, we had
better know about it and we had better deal with it right now for
the good of the future of our nation.
I know that the public school system certainly has its
shortcomings, but if the education system is by and large
delivering a product that is acceptable in terms of the success
rate of students going through the system, then why indeed look
at a separate, exclusionary educational system for Mi'kmaq
children?
I submit that the entire philosophical foundation upon which
this bill is formulated is wrong. It is divisive and it
presupposes that Canadians cannot work together, be educated
together and coexist in an environment of peaceful co-operation.
It presupposes that we have to divide ourselves and further
divide ourselves as Canadians into groups and subgroups in order
to get ahead. I submit that is a very wrongheaded and in the
long run a very divisive and indeed destructive philosophy.
I am perhaps most disturbed, though, by the aspect of this
initiative which I call the potential for a misapplication of
scarce public funds. Scarce public funds refers to that great
pot of money that the finance minister collects every year from
Canadians, the taxpayers' contributions to the federation. The
idea is that the federal government has unlimited money to put
into education or into anything. Of course we have all come to
understand differently over the last few years that government
resources are limited and indeed we have found out just how
limited because we have been living well beyond our means for so
long that it has caught up to us and virtually every Canadian is
feeling the pinch. We have very limited resources to be applying
toward education.
I will give the House some facts. They come right from the
department of Indian affairs, lest anyone think I am making them
up. The department gave us a briefing a few short months ago to
advise us of what a wonderful job it was doing in managing the
affairs of aboriginal people in Canada. Officials of the
department talked about this wonderful educational budget they
have and the fact that it was being used to provide an education
service in aboriginal communities across Canada.
In most non-aboriginal communities the cost of educating one
child per year in the elementary and secondary school systems is
about $7,000.
It varies by province and it varies by region, but in general we
can take that number as a fairly safe estimate of what it costs
to educate one Canadian child in the regular public school system
on an annual basis.
1850
The records of the department of Indian affairs show that it is
spending approximately $20,000, which is about three times as
much for every aboriginal child in the separate aboriginal school
system. I and many would argue that the success rate of this
separate educational system is far from sterling. It is very
obvious when more aboriginal youth in this country go to jail
than to university that something is wrong. It is very obvious
when the proportion of aboriginal youth who actually finish grade
12 is far less than it is in the non-aboriginal population that
something is really wrong.
I could not for the life of me understand how so much money
could be going into a system when the results coming out at the
other end were so dismal.
I had the occasion a few years ago to visit a small school on a
rural countryside reserve in British Columbia. I want to tell
all members what I found there. I was invited by the then chief
and one of the counsellors. They were quite proud of this
school, and rightly so. It was a beautiful building. It was new
and I could understand their sense of pride.
The building was virtually new. I do not know what the cost of
it was, but I would venture to guess it was well over $1 million.
It was for a group of 11 children. The reason for that is that
most of the parents of the children in that community had already
voted with their feet and had sent their children to the regular
public school system because they felt their children had a much
better chance of getting a good education in the regular school
system than they did in this special aboriginal only school
system.
Let me tell the House what else I found. For these 11 children
there were two teachers, full time I presume, and a clerk working
behind the desk who greeted visitors and who, I assume, did other
clerical duties. So there were three full time, paid staff. On
top of that there was a school board comprised of eight school
board members, all receiving an annual remuneration for being
school board members. There was also a chairman of the board
who, I assume, received remuneration for being a school board
member as well as chairman.
This was an extremely expensive school and school board set up
for the benefit of educating 11 children of various ages. One
could imagine how difficult it might have been for the teachers
in that environment to focus on the children properly when the
range in ages was so great. This is an absolute fact. This
exists today in British Columbia.
If we find this in one circumstance and we look at the
department of Indian affairs' own numbers and see that it is
spending three times as much on aboriginal children's education
as the regular public school system is spending, the results
speak for themselves in terms of the attainment of those
students. Something is horribly wrong with the picture.
I would submit and the Reform Party would submit that we are not
going to address the problem by measures such as those which are
in the bill before us. For that very reason we cannot support
the philosophical underpinnings of this bill or the cost of it.
The fact is that the whole concept of aboriginal only,
exclusionary education has not succeeded in delivering a product.
For all these reasons we cannot support this bill and we cannot
support the amendments because they do not change the principle
of the bill. I am thankful for the opportunity to present my
views on this bill and I look forward to hearing what other
members have to say.
1855
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity this evening to address Bill C-30
at report stage. Bill C-30 is an act respecting the powers of
the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education. This bill
would transfer jurisdiction for the education of band members to
nine Mi'kmaq bands in my home province of Nova Scotia.
Chief Lindsay Marshall of the Chapel Island Band and chairman of
Mi'kmaq Kina'matnewey education stated to the Standing Committee
on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development: “Jurisdiction
of education is a basic right that is enjoyed by all Canadians
and a right that our Mi'kmaq nation has not exercised since the
time of colonization of this country, 500 years ago”.
This bill sets out to undo that injustice and to place far
greater control over education at the community level.
Motion No. 1 reads, in part, as follows:
A community shall, as far as possible, provide or make
provisions for primary, elementary and secondary educational
programs and services for members of the community, wherever they
reside in Nova Scotia.
This is an attempt to make sure that Mi'kmaq people, regardless
of where they reside in Nova Scotia, will benefit from this
transfer of educational jurisdiction.
As my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois mentioned, we did
hear concerns expressed by some Mi'kmaq presenters who appeared
before the committee about this concept of dividing the
community.
One presenter made a very clear presentation around the fact
that quite often certain members of the community may not live
right on the reserve, either because of housing, as has been
mentioned, or perhaps because of job opportunities or other
reasons beyond their control. Yet they are as much Mi'kmaq off
reserve as they are on reserve. It was felt that the bill in its
present format tended to divide the community and that therefore
this kind of amendment would go a long way in showing that there
is cohesion among the Mi'kmaq people and that, regardless of
where the person resides, they should have access to the
opportunities to maintain their culture, to have control over
their education and to benefit from the educational system which
would apply with this transfer of jurisdiction.
Members opposite have mentioned that there is some concern about
moving ahead with this motion because there is now great support
among the aboriginal people of Nova Scotia for this bill. Indeed
there is. There is a lot of excitement in the air. There is a
lot of anticipation and people want to get on with the job. We
certainly do not want to hold up the legislation.
However, by the same token it is very important to consider the
fact that a community must not be divided artificially, and we
should not become overly concerned about the cost and the
jurisdictional question because this has been a longstanding
problem that aboriginal people have faced for years, the question
of whether they can have access to a certain service.
Quite often they have found themselves bounced back and forth
between federal and provincial jurisdiction. Some people have
been told “You are aboriginal and that comes under the federal
government”. Then they go to the federal government and hear
“You are living off reserve and that service comes under the
province. You should go there”. Quite often aboriginal people
have found themselves in no man's land in terms of getting the
same benefits that other Canadians would normally access.
We should not become overly concerned about that because
reasonable people can work out ways of resolving those issues. I
am sure the federal and provincial governments could work out a
way whereby if aboriginals living off reserve want to access a
program that is on reserve there could be a way of working that
out to everyone's satisfaction. Where there is a will there is a
way.
I am very supportive of this motion because I feel that it gives
the bill the kind of thrust the aboriginal people want to have in
terms of providing a unified community.
1900
We have heard a lot of talk from the Reform Party about setting
up a separate educational system being undesirable. I find it
quite astonishing to hear that kind of talk because when we look
at it, this is in fact what has been done from the time the
federal government first created the Indian Act. It set up a
system that has failed. The residential schools are a prime
example of the failure of the non-aboriginal society to deal
appropriately and fairly with our aboriginal citizens.
Why now, all of a sudden when aboriginal people would like to
take charge of their own destiny, is there some great concern
that we are setting up something separate and something different
that is going to cause some harm? Certainly no more harm can be
done than the harm that was caused over the years.
Now it is time, I would submit, for a positive change. We are
on the brink of that change. We ought not to let any
fearmongering and concern about this difference deter us from the
goal of allowing people to take charge of their own destiny and
their own future.
We hear talk about the cost. The hon. member from the Reform
Party mentioned that it is costing three times as much to educate
an aboriginal child in the current system than it is for someone
in the public school system. He said that something is wrong, and
I agree that something is wrong. What is wrong is that with the
figures he is using and the comparison he is making, he is
talking about the management of the educational system by the
department of Indian affairs.
In Nova Scotia we are talking about something different. We are
talking about transferring the ownership and the authority and
the responsibility to the Mi'kmaq people themselves. We are not
talking about continuing the department of Indian affairs
administration.
The hon. member and the Reform Party has made a very strong
argument in favour of the bill because they can see the mess that
has been made by the department over the years. Now we want to
move ahead to something more positive.
We should look at this in a very positive way. Certainly if the
hon. members in this House want to move ahead on a new dawn in
terms of what can happen for aboriginal people in Canada, we
would support this bill wholeheartedly. We would look seriously
at supporting the amendment to enable communities to remain
together, undivided, so that they can overcome whatever
difficulties they have in terms of living on the reserve or off
the reserve.
This is a very important piece of legislation. We must not be
sidetracked by any erroneous arguments around cost. I have said
before in the House that many times we get sidetracked when we
start looking at cost. We should be looking at what is right to
do for our fellow human beings, for our fellow citizens and move
ahead on that premise and not be sidetracked by drawing figures
and comparisons here, there and everywhere.
Let us look at the reality of what this means to the people, to
the children. We are talking more about culture. We are talking
about maintaining language. We see that over the years the
aboriginal people have been robbed of their language. They have
been robbed of their culture. They have been robbed of their
identity. Hence the reason for the low self-esteem and lack of
achievement.
This bill can move people forward with a sense of self-worth, a
sense of control of their destiny. It can give them the
meaningful life they need to move ahead in the future. This is
what we should be working toward.
I am pleased to support the motion by my hon. colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
an historic piece of legislation that delegates jurisdiction over
education to the Mi'kmaq people through the Mi'kmaq education
corporation. Nine of the thirteen Mi'kmaq bands in Nova Scotia
support this legislation. The others have the option of joining
later and are waiting to see how well this process works.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports self-government.
This is seen as a step in that direction.
However, on the amendment from the hon. member for Saint-Jean
with whom I have the pleasure of sitting in committee and always
listen very closely to his words and comments, all that aside, I
would still like to say how it is very difficult for me to
support his amendment.
I understand it was put forth in good faith but the Conservative
Party cannot support the amendment. The reason we cannot support
the amendment is similar to that of the hon. member for Halifax
West in the New Democratic Party who said we do not have to worry
about the cost. We do have to worry about the cost. What is more
important is the Mi'kmaq nation of Nova Scotia has to worry about
the cost.
1905
We have a framework agreement that was negotiated among the
bands of the province of Nova Scotia. That framework agreement
has precedence over the bill itself. Within the framework
agreement it was agreed to try this process for a period of three
to five years and then look at the process.
The problem with this specific amendment is that it would
require the reserve's goals to provide education programs and
services to those living off reserve. It cuts in on provincial
jurisdiction as the hon. member on the opposite side has already
mentioned. More important, it is not in the framework agreement.
It would place an administrative and financial burden on the
schools that have agreed to opt in to the agreement.
At the same time and the thing we should not forget in the House
is that at the end of the five year agreement we will have the
opportunity to review this. The other bands in Nova Scotia will
have the opportunity for a review and to look at it. At that
time if we can afford the cost, it is possible to include the on
reserve Mi'kmaq along with the reserve natives.
If we try to do this unilaterally the problem is that no cost
estimates have been done. In many instances it may only be a
matter of a quarter of a mile or kilometre or less. In other
instances it could be a matter of busing children 15, 20 or 30
kilometres and there may not be the amount of students to make
that a cost saving or a responsible measure.
Although I recognize the reason the amendment was put forth, the
Conservative Party cannot support that amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted earlier today, the
question on the motion in Group No. 1 is deemed to have been
put and a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and
deferred.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-30 be amended by
adding after line 30 on page 4 the following new Clause:
“12.1 No later than three years after the coming into
force of all the provisions of this Act, the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development shall convene a conference
composed of the signatories of the Agreement in order to
determine whether this Act should be converted into a treaty
within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the question on the motion in Group No. 2 is deemed to have been
put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded
and deferred until Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at the end of
Government Orders.
* * *
[English]
DEPOSITORY BILLS AND NOTES ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-9, an act
respecting depository bills and depository notes and to amend the
Financial Administration Act, as reported (without amendment)
from the committee.
1910
Hon. Christine Stewart (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)) moved that the bill
be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Christine Stewart (for the Secretary of State
(International Financial Institutions)) moved that the bill be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present
Bill S-9 for third and final reading in the House of Commons.
This bill establishes a new act to be known as the depository
bills and notes act.
The proposed legislation is rather technical in nature but it is
extremely important to the efficiency of capital markets in
Canada. The proposed new act updates federal legislation to
bring it into line with the way that trades and financial
instruments are processed today.
As hon. members are aware, advances in information technology
are changing the way that businesses in every sector of the
economy operate. There is no doubt that the financial sector has
probably been more affected by these changes than most.
Competitive pressures in the financial sector are intense. They
ensure that new ways of doing business are constantly being found
to make financial practices and markets more efficient. The
depository bills and notes act is just one measure being
introduced by this government to help support and encourage the
modernization of our financial sector.
The specific area of activity covered by this legislation is the
processing of transactions in certain financial instruments that
come under federal law. A key element of modern market practice
is the holding of financial instruments in central depositories.
When an instrument held in a central depository is sold,
ownership of that instrument is transferred from seller to buyer
by means of an entry on the books of the depository. This means
that there is no longer any need to arrange for the physical
transfer of the instrument from one party to another.
The use of securities depositories has obvious advantages in
terms of both the safety and efficiency of transactions in
financial markets. While transfers of many financial instruments
are already handled in this way, the proposed legislation will
expand the list of eligible instruments to include two new types
of instruments, namely depository bills and depository notes.
Bankers acceptances and commercial paper will now be eligible to
be held in a central depository. Bill S-9 also establishes that
changes of ownership of these instruments will be affected by
making the appropriate entries in the records of the depository
by book entry.
This legislation is necessary because the existing rules
governing these types of instruments as set out in the Bills of
Exchange Act were written well before the establishment of
central depositories and still refer to being in physical
possession of a financial instrument when describing the rights
of the parties involved in a transaction. These requirements of
the Bills of Exchange Act have so far precluded the use of a
depository for financial instruments that are subject to that
legislation.
In other words, because this legislation has not been amended to
accommodate modern practices, the full use of central
depositories has been held back. The legislation before us, the
depository bills and notes act, addresses this situation.
1915
The new act ensures that in law the purchaser has the same legal
rights with such modifications as are necessary in the
circumstances as a purchaser of a bill or note under the Bills of
Exchange Act without requiring the actual delivery of the
instrument.
The introduction of these new financial instruments in no way
precludes individuals or institutions from purchasing and holding
other bills and notes that still fall under the authority of the
Bills of Exchange Act.
To distinguish these new types of instruments from other similar
securities they will be marked on their face with wording that
indicates that they are depository bills and notes subject to the
depository bills and notes act.
The benefits of extending the use of central depositories should
not be delayed any further. The Canadian depository for
securities would like to make bankers acceptances and commercial
paper eligible to be held in their depository this fall. Passage
of the legislation would allow them to do that.
The introduction of the depository bills and notes act is
consistent with the recommendations made by the private sector
group concerned with the workings of the international financial
system commonly known as the G-30. This group is calling for the
widespread introduction of securities depository systems and book
entry transaction recording on the basis that they will improve
the efficiency of the money markets. This initiative is also
supported by all elements of the financial community.
A related technical amendment to the Financial Administration
Act has been included in the legislation. The Financial
Administration Act permits negotiable instruments such as T-bills
and government bonds to be traded in the market. However, there
is a technical legal issue regarding the definition of negotiable
instrument and whether it includes government debt for which
there is no physical certificate. The amendment will make it
clear that government debt of this kind can be traded.
Bill S-9 deserves speedy passage and I urge my hon. colleagues
to concur so that we may move on to other legislation.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
S-9, an act respecting depository bills and bills of exchange, is
one of those complex acts that seem to be of interest only to
accountants, stockbrokers, bankers and the type of people who
have had to ask for some changes in the legislation in order to
improve the efficiency of the agencies they use every day to
facilitate the movement of money. That is what Bill S-9 is all
about, to ensure the finances of this country flow more smoothly
because unfortunately the legal profession has caught up with us
and made simple bills of exchange.
When I studied bills of exchange many years ago, it was down to
a simple statement about what exactly a bill of exchange was and
it was all included on a simple piece of paper, a promise to pay
signed by one person to another, and so on. I will not bore
members with the exact definition of a bill of exchange.
The lawyers got hold of a bill of exchange and added clause
after clause and indemnifications and other rules and regulations
to the point now that these bills of exchange are practically in
book form rather than a single piece of paper. As a result, when
we want to move a bill of exchange or have a piece of paper pass
from one to the other, we have to pass a book, a whole raft of
papers to ensure that legal liability is covered off and
indemnification is covered off and so on.
That has become cumbersome in this electronic age and that is why
Bill S-9 has been introduced here to improve the situation.
1920
Without getting into long details, the concept of the bill is to
leave the big book of rules and regulations and definition of
bills of exchange in one central depository and therefore to pass
a piece of paper referring to this document in a central
depository, saying we agree to abide by the rules and regulations
without having to pass the whole book or documents from one
person to another as evidence of the debt. There is now one
piece of paper saying we refer to all the rules and regulations
in the central depository and that is where they will remain and
we can refer to them at any time.
I am concerned that perhaps a generation from now this single
piece of paper that we now pass as evidence to the central
depository record is going to get bigger and bigger and soon we
will require a new Bill S-9 with a new single piece of paper
referring to the documents which refer to the original documents.
Who knows where we are going to end up.
Efficiencies are in order and required. That is why the Reform
Party has seen fit to support this bill. We are the party of
opposition so we have reluctantly decided that in the interests
of efficiency, improved financial markets and the interests of
Reform it would be beneficial that we support this bill. On that
basis I will close and leave the more complex remarks to my
colleagues.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to join in the debate to Bill S-9, an act respecting
depository bills and notes and to amend the Financial
Administration Act.
Departmental officials have indicated that the depository bills
and notes act is a technical piece of legislation needed to
support improvements in the efficiency of capital markets in
Canada. The bill is intended to modernize outdated federal
legislation dealing with the transfer of banker's acceptances and
commercial bills.
The bill addresses mobilization, meaning a physical instrument
will be used but will be held in custody by a clearing house or
the like until book entries can be made to show transfer of
ownership. With the new technology available today there is no
longer a paper transfer during a trade. A simple book entry is
made. This bill does not actually spell out which one of these
two acts is the case. Instead the transaction is governed by the
rules of the depository house.
I would like to know whether this is common with similar
legislation in other financial markets. For instance, if two
individuals entered into an agreement where one's interest is
transferred to the other but the depository is not notified of
the transaction until just before maturity, who has the legal
right to the interest before the custodian of the bill has been
notified? Is it the buyer or the seller?
Furthermore, this legislation deals with electronic transactions
and pushes the markets further away from the old system of paper
trading and any protection offered against the millennium bug or
what is now known as the Y2K risk.
A leading economist from New York, Edward Yardeni, has suggested
that the Y2K problem is far worse than the American government
likes to admit, partly out of the government's fear over
lawsuits.
1925
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have already gone through quite a few of the details of this
technical bill and I think most people watching, unless they are
in the banking business or are dealing in the buying and selling
of depository bills and notes and so on, are going to find this a
dry and dusty debate.
I want to point out one thing about this bill that makes me a
reluctant convert to agree to it. I do not claim any expertise,
but the contents look pretty straightforward. They remove the
requirements for actual physical transactions under the
depository notes and bills. In other words, we can go electronic
as we are heading into the 21st century and all that.
The number of this bill is S-9. S stands for Senate,
Senate-9. There are other words that start with S that
could also perhaps describe the Senate.
The reason I am not totally happy with this bill is that it
originated in the Senate. The Senate has this privilege, but it
is interesting that increasingly the government chooses to use
the Senate to start the debate on these bills. It is happy to do
so because the official opposition is not present in the Senate.
The Senate is filled with good, loyal, elderly statesmen, shall
we say, who thrive on protocol, alcohol and geritol and are able
in their collective wisdom to give so-called sober second
thought. The problem is that this bill is not going there for
sober second thought. It went there for the semi-sober first
look.
The difficulty that many of us in the House of Commons have with
that, all of us on the opposition side, is that commonly bills
should originate in the House of Commons. They should go through
first and second reading. They should go to committee. They
should come back. They should go through the report stage. They
should suffer through the amendments. They should endure the
slings and arrows of the opposition.
They should go through the close scrutiny this place provides
over a course of weeks usually and then having done all of that,
they should then go through the Senate. It should not be that
type of Senate, but be that as it may, we are stuck with it for
now. Then they should go to the Senate. The Senate should give
bills that sober second look and then, having done that, they
should go for royal assent and away we go. That is normally the
way bills go.
This bill originated in the Senate where there is no opposition.
The official opposition is not present in the Senate. It goes
through whatever machinations go on through there. I do not even
know how the system works in that other place. Then it comes
here and we are sort of supposed to rubber stamp it. That is
what bothers me about this bill.
We are now up to S-9. I do not think we had nine in the entire
last parliament and now we are up to nine bills already
originating from the Senate. The Senate gets the first crack at
it. It gets the first amendments. It does the hearings. It
does whatever it is going to do to it all without the official
opposition. At the end of it, it is just handed to us and we are
expected to get out the rubber stamp, flop the approved sign on
it, off to the GG it goes and Bob's your uncle.
Unfortunately we are not able to do that in that proper order.
That is why this bill is less ideal than it could be. The
government should bring legislation into the House of Commons.
That is the proper way to do it. It should be dealt with by all
parties in this place because this is a representative place of
the Canadian mosaic. This represents people who support the
government, people who oppose the government, a diverse group of
ideas. No one has the monopoly on the truth, but at least you
get a little exchange of ideas here. It goes to committee, the
same thing, and so on.
But when it originates in the Senate, the process is wrong. It
is skewed. It is wrong. The other place gets legitimacy that it
does not deserve. Although I will vote in favour of this bill
because the contents seem in order and I believe it will help to
modernize our banking industry, the process is wrong. It is
flawed.
In that sense the government is thumbing its nose at Canadians,
saying it does not matter that we voted in members of the
government, members of the opposition. We are just going to
bypass that process and go directly to the Senate. Do not pass
go. Do not collect $200. Just live with it.
That should get them a go to jail card. The big halt should be
put on it right there because the process is flawed.
1930
I wanted to talk about the number of the bill, Bill S-9. Every
time the government starts a bill in the Senate I will speak
against it for that reason alone. That place does not deserve to
have the first crack at it. It deserves to be here with us who
are elected and not with those who are appointed.
I will support the bill, but I will oppose where it originated.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
hon. colleague for his intervention. I certainly agree with
everything he had to say. I just want to ask him a question.
When the hon. member looks at the fact that we are already up to
S-9 in this parliament—and I believe he is right that in the
last parliament we had very few bills that originated in the
Senate—does he think that the reason for this perversion of
process, the reason we are having so many bills generated in the
Senate and coming to the House, is the lack of a parliamentary
agenda on the part of the Liberal government?
Does the hon. member think that is the reason this phenomenon is
so prominent in this parliament? Could my hon. colleague take a
couple of minutes to expand on the parliamentary agenda of the
Liberal government?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Skeena for that question.
There is a paucity of legislation on anything meaningful coming
from the government. It is interesting that even on the Senate
side the senators are saying “There is nothing for us to do”. I
guess that is why the government gives them bills to start there.
In other words there is no legislation coming in a timely
fashion from the House of Commons, going through the committee
structure, going through first, second and third readings, going
through report stage amendments, going through votes and off to
the Senate.
This pushes the level of credulity almost to the maximum. Even
the Senate says there is not enough for it to do. I thought
counting flowers on the wall did not bother them at all over
there. I thought there was general glee when there was little to
do. In fact most Canadians wonder what it is they do there
anyway.
They are even complaining there is nothing to do. The reason
is—and the viewers at home should know this as well—the
legislative agenda of the government is so slim and so weak that
not only in the Senate but even in the House of Commons we find
ourselves, I would not say killing time but looking for the
visionary type bills that can move the country forward. Instead
we have housekeeping bills. Again, we are happy to pass the
bill, but would it not be better to have a plethora of meaningful
bills which would help form a vision of where we want the country
to go?
The difference between dreaming and a vision is that dreams are
just idle chatter and conversation but a vision is a how-to plan
with meat on its bones that can make something happen, that can
make the country better. When we do not have meat on the bones
we have slim pickings, to use that analogy. We are faced with
that again in this session.
It is like the government got elected a year ago and now says
“Hey, we got elected. Does anybody know what we should do?” It
has been running around since then saying “I am not sure what we
should do but here is a housekeeping bill on allowing them to
have a physical transaction under depository notes and bills that
could be computer driven and not just an actual piece of paper
that we hand to one another. There is a visionary statement.
That will bring us rip snorting into the 21st century. What will
we do with all the vision contained in these bills?”
The truth is that it is just weak. It is flaccid. It has
palsy. It has no zip to it. It is viagraless. It has no
potency.
It has nothing to give it life. Weak, flaccid, limp bills kind
of go through the system but do not really have any effect. It
is thin soup and slim pickings. It means that we deal with these
issues because we have to.
1935
We will deal with them, but there is nothing visionary in this
legislative agenda. That is unfortunate because Canadians would
grasp on to that. If they could figure out where the government
was going they would gladly help it get there. The problem is
this bill, notwithstanding the whole legislative slim pickings,
does not give enough of a vision statement that Canadians can
rally around the flag, so to speak, to take us forward. That is
too bad.
The Senate is not helping. It is just trying to get work to do
over there and it has said as much. It does not have enough to
do. It is wondering what it is supposed to do. It is probably
even wondering what its purpose is any more. Besides all that
the government has a weak legislative agenda. It is not a
visionary agenda. It is the kind of thing that it is difficult
to get Canadians excited about when this is the bill we are to
stay late tonight to pass hopefully in a few minutes.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the
hon. member, my friend from the Reform Party.
I cannot disagree substantially with what the member says about
the flaccid, weak, thin soup legislative agenda of the
government.c I take from his remarks that what he is telling the
House and what he is encouraging is that the Senate take a more
active role in the parliamentary process and that if we saw more
substantive bills coming out the Senate the Reform might perhaps
soften its position when it comes to the Senate and its general
participation in the process.
We know that on occasion—and we have even seen it in this
session—we have substantial bills coming out of the Senate,
bills that have been passed and have received the approval of the
House, as is often the case and as the process properly works.
I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would encourage the
Senate to partake more actively in substantive bills by injecting
viagra into the agenda of the other house to work toward bringing
more legislation to the floor of this House? If that is the
agenda the Reform would like to see take place I suggest that is
quite a shift in position for that party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it would be more than a
shift in a position. It would be a complete lobotomy and I am
not prepared to go that far.
I am only pointing out what the Senate says in general, that it
does not have any meaningful work to do. We can list some things
we think could be meaningful for it. We think there could be a
very meaningful role for it in reviewing the appointment process.
Right now the Prime Minister appoints thousands of people who
seldom get the scrutiny or any scrutiny they deserve. A properly
elected Senate could have an effective role in riding herd on the
power of the Prime Minister's office.
Another thing the Senate could do is hold hearings on the
appointments of supreme court justices, for example; the
information commissioner we are now dealing with in this place;
or the privacy commissioner, the watchdog on ethics. There could
be good roles for the Senate including sober second thought on
legislation. It could serve a legitimate role in that regard if
it had the legitimacy that an election would bring.
I was not suggesting in my speech that the role should be
increased to say that is where the bill should originate. I was
quite clear in saying that bills should originate in this place.
The role of an elected Senate with the integrity and legitimacy
that an elected Senate would bring would give it the opportunity
for sober second thought.
I know many of the senators over there right now have said in
times past that they feel their own role would be enhanced if
they were elected into that position instead of appointed. Right
now their situation is a difficult one.
In a sense I feel sorry for senators. They have to go through
the motions. They have to rubber stamp stuff. They have to go
through them before they go to the governor general. I think
many of them are starting to question the role and legitimacy of
their institution.
1940
I am happy to go through a long list of good roles for an
elected Senate, but I would not include in that initiating
legislation in an appointed Senate that bypasses the House of
Commons as the first legitimate look at legislation. I would not
approve that. Nor would it ever pass mustard at a Reform Party
policy convention or over a Reform cup of coffee.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments
has expired. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT, 1985
The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act,
1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
unfortunately was not part of the debate on Friday. I would
point out that this bill has the title of S-3. That is a problem
title.
I do not want to go through it again because people have
probably heard the argument before. However I want to point out
that there are a couple of problems. There are some problems
with the bill itself. We have some questions as to some of the
privileges the bill will confer on certain people and their
ability to transfer funds from pension funds.
This bill originated in the Senate. I point out again that the
process is backward. I will explain it to the government again.
It should bring bills into the House of Commons. This is where
people have been elected to bring in a legislative package. I
understand it is the government's prerogative, but the government
has to bring bills in here so that opposition parties can have
the first go at them. Then they go off to committee. We propose
amendments. We hear from experts and other witnesses. We call
people before us. We go through the whole process. That is how
we devise good legislation.
Following the best legislation that can be created in committee,
it comes back to the House for report stage. The report stage
allows us to go through it section by section. If it needs
improvements we propose amendments. We say “This is how it can
be made better. This is a part that is not clear enough or is
too ambiguous. Let us delete it”. Collectively we through the
whole process. It goes to committee of the whole. We debate. We
fine tune. We try to make something better.
Even when we agree with a piece of legislation there is often
something the government could say. There are very few perfect
bills or perfect people. Mistakes are made and are corrected. We
get things back on track and then we go to a vote. That having
been done it is sent to the other place and the process is
finished off.
However, when a bill originates in the Senate the official
opposition is not there because the Prime Minister appoints
senators. The Senate is not elected.
1945
Alberta right now, Mr. Speaker, you will be happy to know is
going through the Senate electoral process. Coming in this
fall's municipal elections Albertans will be selecting a Senate
nominee to put forward to the Prime Minister. The premier of
Alberta will say, once the selection process is done, that the
person the people of Alberta—I will not speak for all Albertans,
they are going to speak at the polls, what a privilege—have
selected is whoever it might be.
We think it carries the judgment of the people. It carries the
judgment of the legislature. It carries the judgment of that
region. We would like the Prime Minister, as a first step, to
appoint that person to the Senate as the legitimate person to be
in the other place.
If the Reform Party happened to be associated with that person
then we would have at least some representation there. We would
have some idea of what those guys are doing in their spare time.
We could at least say when they introduce a bill in the Senate
that we had a crack at it.
This bill is like the others. It is a backward process. It
will never be legitimized in my mind to go to the other place
first. It should come here. I think Canadians understand that.
When it is explained at a public meeting, they are asked where
they think it should go, to the Senate, where they do not have an
inkling of who gets appointed there unless they have long Liberal
coattails, or to the House of Commons?
People will invariably say “Listen, I elected you guys to get
that job done. It better go there first because that is what
your job is”.
When it is sent to the Senate it is kicked around among the old
boys' club there. They go off to see Mr. MacEachen, if he is
kicking around. They get advice from him. Of course he is not
supposed to be there but be that as it may, they will get some
advice from him and they will talk about it. I do not know what
all they do over there. Then it comes here and we are just
supposed to rubber stamp it. I do not think so. It should come
here first. Then it can go to the Senate and they can waste
their time with it as they see fit.
This is the place for legitimate legislation. Bill S-3 is the
third one. We just passed Bill S-9. It means that increasingly
the government is using this tactic far more than it did in the
last parliament. That is unfortunate and it is a bad trend. That
is why I want to speak against that part of Bill S-3.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Fraser Valley said that the legislative
agenda of the Liberal government is weak and lacks vision.
Would he be willing to share with the House what the legislative
agenda of the Reform Party will be when it forms the government
in 2001?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to
talk about the vision of one's own party and to try to
communicate to people in this forum and in public forums across
the country the kind of things we think Canadians are going to
rally around in the next election.
That is always a debate and it will be a debate for another
election. Several themes can be found that Canadians will rally
around. One increasingly is going to be the fiscal issue.
They will say “What does the future hold? What are you going
to offer me? Is there any prospect of tax relief down the road?
Can I see that there is a package of ideas? What are you going
to do with the surplus? Are you going to continue to create more
new programs? Will you lower our taxes and reduce bureaucracy
and pay down some of that debt while we have this surplus so that
our children and our grandchildren will have some prospects of
even lower taxes and less government interference?”
By the next election, people are going to be saying that a $15
billion or $20 billion UI surplus is too high. It is way too
high. It entails job-killing payroll taxes. Increasingly parties
on this side of the House are saying that that surplus is too
high. It hurts jobs. It hurts families. It hurts entrepreneurs.
It has to be cut back. There is the whole fiscal package.
Second, I have talked about some of the democratic and
parliamentary reforms I think Canadians are more than willing to
embrace. I talked earlier about the Senate and the fact that
Canadians do not believe there is any legitimacy to that other
place.
Besides Senate reform which is obvious, people are going to look
for the democratic and parliamentary reforms that will give them
the faith that change is possible. For a change they will hold
the reins on the politicians they send to Ottawa.
1950
That is going to involve things like the use of a referendum
when people want to bring that forward so that they can have an
actual say on these issues. It is going to mean freer votes in
the House of Commons where people do not lose their jobs or lose
their positions just because they happen to vote against the
government or for a piece of legislation or defeat a bill. It
does not have to defeat the government. There will be some
democratic changes.
People are going to ask what is going to be done with the
thousands of appointments. I looked through the Gazette the
other day and I saw as bold as brass the name of the person I
defeated in the 1993 election. He is now the chairman of the
board of referees of the UI fund in my region. He was defeated
in 1993. He is a Liberal. He was defeated. Of course all
Liberals were defeated in my area. They get used to it. As a
payoff for this fellow the Prime Minister says “Who have we not
looked after lately? That guy who was defeated back in 1993 has
not done any work lately so how about we give him a job as
chairman of the board of referees?” And they just did it.
I think Canadians are right to ask why is it that all the
defeated Liberal candidates get jobs at taxpayers' expense. “I
turfed that guy out. I did not give him a job. He did not have
my confidence and now he has got a job”.
Third, when we talk about the vision of the country, people are
going to ask what is it that we can offer to Canadians from coast
to coast that they will rally round when it comes to the division
of powers and the future of our country. How are we going to
handle the provincial, federal, municipal power structure in this
country. How are we going to handle that to help us to bring us
together as a country yet not cause division between provinces
like we have had too often over the last few years? That is a
legitimate question.
One of the first things we would do is recognize municipal
governments as one of the first levels of government closest to
the people. We should bring those people in when we have
federal-provincial talks. We should have representatives, not
thousands, but representatives of municipal governments at those
tables.
For example we say we are going to have this new
interprovincial-federal agreement that has to do with some kind
of distribution of some sort of services, maybe a CAPC program,
some sort of program that has federal dollars involved, organized
by the provinces and administered by local governments. The CAPC
program is a perfect example.
Rather than give the late night phone call to the
municipalities, somewhere along the line we should have them in
at the start and ask “How can we make this program work for you?
How can we tailor it so that it has flexibility for you?” Let
us get the municipalities involved in the big picture as well as
just in the administration of the local fire hydrants. They need
to be part of that and I think we can help there.
The whole process of the division of powers between the
provinces and the feds is a big issue that can unify the country.
We can say we are going to make this place focus on a fewer
number of chores but we are going to do them well. Then we will
give over to them a whole bunch of other packages including
control of culture, language and health care. All those things
are going to be left with the provinces because constitutionally
that is where they should be.
We are going to do fewer things but we are going to do them
well. We are going to do national defence. We are going to make
sure that interprovincial trade barriers are struck down. We are
going to have international trade. We are going to have
international agreements, WTO and GATT and their successors and
so on. We are going to look after this, they are going to look
after that. We will not tromp on their territory, but they
should respect that ours is going to be held firmly as well.
Those are the kinds of things that when people ask if it will
help them get a job, we can say yes it will. It will help to
secure their future so that not every level of government is
interfering with them. We will help them do that. It will lower
their taxes so that they can look after their families, so that
they can start and keep a business going. We will make it more
democratically accountable so they can have confidence that the
people they send to Ottawa will have a real impact and that they
will be able to give them direction. They will not have to just
salute the flag and obey the party line.
When I talk to people. those are the kinds of things they say
they like. They ask to be convinced that we can pull it off, but
at least it is a vision different from what we have now. In the
next election, if we are able to get the discussion on to those
big issues, the Reform Party will do perfectly well.
More important, the country will do well because those issues
need to be settled so that people can move forward with
confidence in the future and not just say it has to be the same
old way it has always been because that is just the way it has
been and how could we ever change it. We can change it. It can
be better. All political parties would do well to make those
positive changes rather than say the status quo is the way it has
to be.
1955
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have two
short, very objective questions for my colleague, for whom I
have a great deal of respect and with whom I enjoy working, if
he wants to return jurisdiction for certain matters, including
language, to the provinces. I ask him whether it is not the
federal government's role to protect minorities, because our
track record on minorities in this country is not too wonderful.
That is the first point on which I would very honestly like his
opinion.
It does not seem to me that giving the provinces complete
responsibility will be much of a guarantee for our minorities.
Second, and this is my final question, I would like to know
which article in his party's new electoral platform has to do
with its partnership with Quebec's separatists. What promise
would he like to have in his party's next electoral platform?
There does not seem to be much promise in this, in my view.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, those are two issues which
do not dominate the discussions out in the area where I live. The
linguistic issues we deal with are somewhat different than the
ones we deal with in parliament, but nonetheless I am happy to
talk about them.
In my area the linguistic issues are how many people who speak
Punjabi do we need in our local hospitals? That is a linguistic
issue from Abbotsford. How can we provide services to the couple
hundred thousand unilingual Chinese immigrants in the lower
mainland? That is a linguistic issue in the lower mainland. When
we talk about linguistic issues on the west coast it is a far
different issue than it is here. The issues that dominate the
national media so to speak do not dominate our local issues at
all. They are just not commonly talked about.
I take it the member is talking specifically about the use of
French and English, the two dominant languages in Canada and the
role of the federal government in protecting minority rights. The
Reform Party has always said that the federal government does
have a role in the protection of rights of individuals but not in
the promotion of the culture or language in a particular
province.
For example, in the province of Quebec where the member comes
from the role of the federal government under a Reform government
would not be to promote the French language or culture. We think
it is a dynamic language and culture and it is a great thing for
Canada and for Quebec. However, the promotion of culture and
language is a role of the provincial government.
The role of the federal government is restricted to the
protection of minority rights. In other words if someone is
using the heavy hand to steamroll over a minority right wherever
it might be in the country, then the federal government does have
a role to step in.
The promotion of language and culture is a provincial
responsibility. There should not be an item in the federal
government that says it is going to spend X amount of
dollars promoting culture in any of the provinces. It just will
not happen. That is a job which should be left with the
provinces and we are not going to interfere in that.
It gives the provinces the assurance that the money they spend
and the efforts they make are going to be directed as they see
fit. It means that people in all regions of the country are not
going to have a policy that often makes no sense at all in the
lower mainland of British Columbia be the same policy as that in
Chicoutimi.
It just does not mesh. One policy does not fit all.
2000
In British Columbia, at least, I can say that the current
government policy is a real puzzle which says that it is the one
size fits all national policy on culture and language. In the
lower mainland they just look at one another and say “Where are
these people coming from?” It just does not make a lick of
sense. We have all kinds of linguistic problems, but also
linguistic opportunities because of the cultural diversity that
we have in the lower mainland. We take advantage of that. We
have a window on the world because of the diversity in the lower
mainland.
The Official Languages Act, for example, is so irrelevant in the
lower mainland that people really do not even know what it is
that anybody could even be conceivably talking about. They just
do not understand how that policy is relevant in the lower
mainland, and it is not relevant.
There are some separatists in Quebec who are hopeless to deal
with. They want to leave Canada for every real and imagined
problem. They just say “Everything is hopeless. Nobody loves
me. I'm going out to the garden to eat worms”. That is their
response to everything.
There are, however, other people in Quebec who over the last 20
years have said “I am not really a separatist, but I am so
frustrated with a federal government that says this is the way it
has to be”. This is federal-provincial jurisdiction, and so on,
and nothing can change. It has to remain so forever. Many of
those people say “Is there any other option but separatism?” We
say to those people “Yes, there is. There is a troisième voie.
There is a third vision, an option, that is not separatism, but
it is not the status quo either. It is something better, but
different than what we have now”. Those are the kinds of people
we want to talk to. Those who say “We are going to leave
because we don't want to talk to anybody. We are not going to
debate. We are never going to argue”, we cannot talk to them
because their minds are made up.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to continue the debate on Bill S-3. I listened closely
to the comments made by my colleague for Fraser Valley and of
course the Reform Party endorses what he says, that we do not
like this bill coming to us via the Senate. The bill should have
been introduced here in the House of Commons. In that way the
government could get the real views of the official opposition
rather than the view of some senator who has been firmly
entrenched down the hall for many years.
That being said, the bill does have some good points. The
Reform Party is not unduly opposed to this particular bill. It
will regularize and strengthen pension plan supervision by the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure
that the plan holder's funds are protected as best as possible
and managed as best as possible.
In this day and age of small business wanting to provide better
benefits to their employees, it will allow small business to set
up pension plans at a much reduced cost by basically adopting a
template that is laid out by the government, by administering it
themselves rather than a trustee and so on.
These things of course we endorse in the Reform Party because we
believe that strengthening the free enterprise system is
beneficial. Strengthening benefits to employees is beneficial.
To provide them with job security and real benefits in their
employment is beneficial and this plan goes a long way in doing
that.
It also deals with the issue of surpluses in plans. Some plans
have done very well in the stock market of late. Of course, it
is not just pension plans that have done well in the stock market
these last number of years. Individuals, as well, have made all
kinds of money.
Bill S-3 deals with distributing surpluses. It says that if
there is a vote of two-thirds of the members in favour of a
particular proposal then that proposal will take effect. If the
proposal is to return the surplus to the employer, then that is
exactly what will happen and the employer will have a refund of
its contributions, or even have access to the surplus in the plan
even though it did not contribute to it in the first place.
That is done by vote of the membership and it is a reasonably
democratic process which I do not think we would have fault with
under most circumstances.
2005
However, there is one particular circumstance that does come to
my attention which is the conflict of interest for the Minister
of Finance. The first thing we have to point out is that the
motion introducing Bill S-3 in the House of Commons was a motion
proposed by the Minister of Finance. That gives me a bit of
concern because the Minister of Finance, as we know, is a very
successful businessman, as well as being the Minister of Finance
and a parliamentarian.
It is common knowledge that the minister was the president of
the Canada Steamship Lines and is a major shareholder in that
organization. Like many employers, Canada Steamship Lines has a
pension plan for the benefit of its members which has a surplus
that I am sure most people would be proud of. It has a surplus
in excess of $100 million. The question is: Where does that
surplus belong?
Bill S-3 will create a process by which the ownership of the
company can have access to the fund. I believe that the Minister
of Finance has placed himself in a conflict of interest position
by virtue of the fact that he proposed the bill. His company,
and he personally as a major shareholder of that company, could
potentially benefit from this bill once it passes the House of
Commons.
We talked to the ethics commissioner and he felt that it really
would not have any impact on the Minister of Finance because his
pension was registered under a different act. We thought that if
that was what the ethics commissioner told us, then perhaps that
was the end of the story. We have faith in the ethics of the
ethics commissioner, or I thought we had faith in the ethics of
the ethics commissioner.
However, over the years we have raised some serious doubts about
that very point right here as members of the opposition. I again
raise the issue because the financial statements of the Pension
Fund Society of Canada Steamship Lines Limited annual report,
December 31, 1996, state that the plan is registered under the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, registration No. 55006.
Bill S-3 amends the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
Therefore, the ethics commissioner is absolutely wrong or he
does not know his ethics. That is a serious point.
To further strengthen my argument, I took a look at the
bulletins put out by the CSL pension fund. The October 1997
bulletin regarding the plan surplus states:
We expect Bill S-3 to be passed as early as December but more
likely in early 1998. The regulations which ultimately will
accompany the bill are not likely to be submitted until after its
passage. Until we see the regulations we cannot determine how
the Society will be affected.
It goes on to state:
We can only reiterate our previous advice that as yet there has
been no decision to proceed with a surplus distribution proposal
and no surplus distribution proposal will occur without advice to
members and full consultation and agreement thereafter.
The bulletin is from the plan to its members and specifically
refers to the fact that Bill S-3 is very much in control of their
pension plan. Therefore, the ethics commissioner is quite wrong
in advising us to the contrary. Also it quite specifically
refers to the fact that they intend to have a distribution after
the passage of Bill S-3.
I come back to my point that the motion to have the House deal
with Bill S-3 was introduced by the Minister of Finance. I think
the Minister of Finance should clarify his position regarding
Bill S-3.
2010
While he has brought down budgets and balanced the budget of the
Government of Canada, which is a great achievement on his part,
we would not want his reputation to be tarnished in any way,
shape or form by the fact that he has allowed his office, his
position and himself to be compromised by a small thing such as
Bill S-3.
As I said, the Minister of Finance, first, owes this House an
explanation as to why he introduced the bill and why it was not
introduced by anyone else. I understand that the Minister of
Industry introduced a bill in the previous parliament. It was
virtually identical to this bill and it was introduced by the
Minister of Industry. Why the change?
At the same time, I think that the Minister of Finance would not
do anybody a service if he voted on this bill when it comes up
for a vote. These are important issues.
In conclusion, the fact that it comes from the Senate is an
affront to this place. The technical part of the bill has
significant merit, but it also has dealings with Canada Steamship
Lines of which, as we know, the Minister of Finance is a major
shareholder.
By virtue of the documents that I have quoted from here today,
there is no doubt whatsoever that the pension plan of Canada
Steamship Lines is governed by the Pension Benefits Standards Act
and the intent after this bill goes through is to introduce a
motion to distribute the surplus which, as I mentioned, is in
excess of $100 million and somebody stands to benefit a great
deal.
That is why I would hope that the Minister of Finance would
explain his position to this House.
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot of
what has been said here tonight I consider to be blather. To
discuss it in this House at this time is my idea of having
nothing to do. But the member opposite raised a point that I
think should be addressed and that is the Minister of Finance's
ownership of shares in Canada Steamship Lines.
As the member opposite knows, that ownership and those shares
are in a blind trust. That is the law. If the member opposite
wishes to challenge the validity of that blind trust, I would
suggest he do it rather than doing it through the ethics
commissioner, and I would also suggest that he do it outside this
House.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, first, I did not
challenge the ethics of the ethics commissioner and, second, I
asked the Minister of Finance to explain his position to this
House. I did not accuse him of anything whatsoever.
We all know that prior to his career in politics the Minister of
Finance was the president of Canada Steamship Lines and
presumably placed his shares in a blind trust. If I were the
Minister of Finance I would be very surprised to find that these
shares were all gone when I left office, returned to private life
and checked the blind trust to find out what was in there. I am
sure if he finds that the shares of Canada Steamship Lines are
gone he will be asking somebody for an explanation.
Perception is important and I ask that the Minister of Finance
provide this House with an explanation.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during debate on this
legislation on Friday of last week the member for Elk Island put
forward a series of questions concerning Bill S-3 and the
Minister of Finance which were similar to the statements made by
the hon. member for St. Albert.
The member asked, so I will reply, and I would like to reply on
the record.
First of all, at no stage of the process was the Minister of
Finance involved in the preparation of Bill S-3, nor did he have
discussions with officials with respect to its content, nor did
he receive representations on its impact. Indeed, the Minister
of Finance specifically requested that the department not involve
him in any aspect of this legislation whatsoever.
2015
I would like to quote directly from a memorandum prepared on
October 4, 1995 by then deputy minister of finance David Dodge.
The memorandum was addressed to the Minister of Finance and
copied to the then secretary of state for international financial
institutions and read as follows:
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you that the Office
of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is dealing with a
matter in which you are in a potential or apparent conflict of
interest and therefore should not become involved.
In your letter of March 3, 1994, you asked that you not be
involved in any discussion or decision making process involving
Passage Holdings Ltd. This matter involves the pension plan for
members of the Canadian Maritime Officers Union; beneficiaries of
the pension plan include persons employed on ships owned and
operated by the CSL Group, a subsidiary of Passage Holdings, and
the CSL Group is a contributor to the pension plan. OSFI has not
as yet forwarded any documents to you and, after discussion with
the office of the Ethics Counsellor, Departmental and OSFI
officials have been instructed to ensure that you are not to be
involved in this matter in any way.
In this case this may not be sufficient, as the issues may
become public, or the persons involved may seek your assistance.
Mr. Peters (then secretary of state) is aware of this matter and
has been briefed by OSFI officials as part of the responsibility
you asked him to assume for the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
Should you be asked any questions in the House, or receive any
inquiries directly from the public, you should decline to become
involved and allow Mr. Peters to respond on behalf of the
government.
I am forwarding a copy of this memorandum to the Ethics
Counsellor and the Clerk of the Privy Council so that they are
aware of this situation.
In keeping with the spirit of openness and transparency the
finance minister has adhered to, I would certainly make the
document available to other members of the House.
Accordingly Bill S-3 was first introduced into the House in 1995
under the sponsorship of the Minister of Industry. Following the
1997 general election it was reintroduced directly in the other
place by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Throughout the process the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions has taken responsibility for the
management of the legislation within the Department of Finance
and with the Office of the Superintendent for Financial
Institutions.
I would simply reiterate that there is no basis whatsoever for
any suggestion of conflict. The minister has remained entirely
uninvolved with the handling of Bill S-3 and has taken every step
necessary to remove himself from any aspect of the bill.
I trust this puts this matter to rest.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
previous speaker made specific reference to the fact that the
ethics counsellor had been consulted and had rendered his
opinions and so on and so forth.
My notes state that we spoke to the ethics counsellor on January
30 about the minister's involvement or lack thereof with the
legislation. The ethics counsellor answered that the Canada
Steamship Lines pension fund was incorporated under the Pension
Funds Societies Act under the auspices of the Department of
Industry and would not therefore be directly affected by the
Pension Benefits Standards Act.
That is why in my speech I made specific reference to the ethics
of the ethics counsellor who obviously was quite willing to give
us the wrong information, to mislead us in our assessment of the
situation. Obviously he was involved in a much earlier situation
and knew the problem related to the Minister of Finance. That
demonstrates the lack of ethics of the ethics counsellor.
2020
I reiterate that the motion was introduced in the House by the
Minister of Finance. The parliamentary secretary tells us that
the Minister of Finance did everything in his power to remove
himself from the bill, yet he could have quite easily had another
minister or even the secretary of state introduce the motion.
Obviously he preferred to do it.
I am not sure—and I am talking about appearance and perception
being very important in these matters—that the secretary of
state would be sufficient. He is an assistant to the minister.
The present secretary of state was appointed by cabinet
proclamation pursuant section 11 of the Ministers of State Act
first past by Prime Minister Trudeau in 1970.
Section 11 of the act tells us that the duty of the minister is
to assist the minister or ministers having responsibility for any
department and states that the secretary of state will make use
of the services and facilities of the department. Therefore we
know that the secretary of state has full access to Department of
Finance officials and offices.
Further, on June 25, 1997, the Gazette states that the
secretary of state was appointed pursuant to section 11 and the
details of the duty of the secretary state are to assist the
Minister of Finance in the carrying out of his responsibilities.
Therefore the secretary of state is not removed from the Minister
of Finance but is an assistant to the Minister of Finance.
I again raise the question and ask for confirmation of why the
Minister of Finance introduced this motion in the House of
Commons when it could have been introduced by the Minister of
Industry, as it was previously, if the Minister of Finance
specifically knew that he had a definite conflict in terms of the
particular bill?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, it is misleading to say the
minister sponsored the bill. This was deemed to have been
finance moving the motion. Senator Graham sponsored the bill.
The Minister of Finance did not sponsor the bill. It is deemed
in the House that finance moved the bill. That is strictly
procedure.
I go back to the point I made earlier with respect to
perception, to use the hon. member's word. I read into the
record that in a letter from the Minister of Finance on March 3,
1994 he asked that he not be involved in any discussion or the
decision making process involving Passage Holdings Inc. It is
very clear back in 1994 that request was made by the minister.
Back in October 1995 the then deputy minister in a memorandum to
the minister essentially outlined the situation. He advised the
ethics counsellor and the Clerk of the Privy Council so that they
were aware of the situation. The department and OSFI officials
have all be instructed to ensure that the Minister of Finance not
be involved in this matter in any way.
The member can continue with the innuendo and all the rest of
it. I guess that is the role of opposition. I am merely stating
the facts very clearly and for the record. Hon. members asked
for this and I am laying them on the table for everyone to
scrutinize.
I tell the hon. member again that when he makes the point that
the Minister of Finance sponsored this motion in the House I
reiterate that the bill is sponsored by Senator Graham. It is
deemed to have been finance moving the motion in the House. It
is very clear. I restate that it is misleading to say that the
minister sponsored this piece of legislation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we still
have here another related and very substantial question. This
pension fund, the CSL, has a huge surplus. As my colleague from
St. Albert indicated it will be distributed imminently. In other
words the surplus will be dealt with.
According to the rules proposed under Bill S-3 and other
regulations that affect it, the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions oversees the distribution of the surplus.
2025
The problem arises in that it requires a vote of the
beneficiaries of the pension fund to agree to how the surplus is
divided. If they do not agree the surplus will not be divided.
It will stay with the company. However, if they agree by vote it
can be distributed. Presumably some of it at least will go to
the beneficiaries, the previous employees of the organization.
If two-thirds of them vote in favour the superintendent who is
appointed by the Minister of Finance will oversee it. If fewer
than two-thirds vote in favour of it but at least 50% do so it
has to go to an arbitrator. Who appoints the arbitrator? Lo and
behold, it is the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
It is at times like this that I really miss the ability to use
visual aids after my 31 years of teaching. I would love to draw
this as a chart: finance minister appoints the superintendent
who in turn appoints the arbitrator. This is a direct line to
the Minister of Finance. Let us say the people decide they will
split it 50:50. There is a pension surplus of over $110 million
as I understand it, which means that he stands personally to gain
$55 million if that happens. It is under the direct control of
the Minister of Finance through the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions.
That is a question which demands an answer. I sure would like
to hear the response of the parliamentary secretary to that.
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the
comments made by the member for St. Albert in terms of this
aspect of the bill. He indicated that if at least two-thirds of
the members approve they would deal with the surpluses. I am
paraphrasing but what he said was that it was tough to argue with
democracy. It sounds like a pretty democratic process to give
individuals an opportunity to vote on an issue that directly
affects them so the condition of two-thirds was put forward.
The bill was consulted upon. Individuals from the department
and other individuals who were involved consulted on the bill
with the sectors involved to gain input into how certain changes
that were being contemplated would be dealt with. The proposal
in committee was deemed to be quite a positive step. It provides
means whereby employers and employees can decide outside amending
pension agreements what entitlements to surpluses are.
As we have said the bill includes some conditions to ensure
fairness, that at least two-thirds of the members have to
approve. If the two-thirds is not obtained the parties have the
opportunity to go to arbitration but it is up to them. It is up
to the people directly involved.
I go back to the comment that it seems pretty democratic to me.
The only thing I take exception to is the continual innuendo that
the whole thing is being manipulated in some way. I only wish
members could stick to the facts in front of them. I encourage
whomever to go to one of these pension plans that are affected
and ask a member of the plan if he or she feels that he or she
should have the right within a process to decide what should be
done.
I can only respond to the question by saying that the hon.
member for St. Albert seems to feel it is quite democratic. I
only wish the hon. member for Elk Island would also concur.
2030
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.) moved the second reading of, and concurrence
in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Brandon was the wheat
city of Canada and Mr. Speaker as a prairie resident knows that
this bill is dealing with a subject matter that has theological
undertones for a great many of the 5 million of us who live in
the three prairie provinces.
I am very pleased on behalf of the minister responsible for the
wheat board to speak on the amendments to Bill C-4, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, put forward by the other
place.
Before making some comments regarding the amendments may I
acknowledge the diligence with which the committee has approached
its work on this legislation. As we all know, the Senate
committee held hearings in Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary,
Edmonton, Winnipeg and Ottawa over the course of several weeks.
At those hearings there were 92 individual farmers, 34 farm
organizations and three provincial ministers of agriculture who
made presentations to the Minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board, officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and
officials from the wheat board itself.
The result of those consultations is a set of amendments which
the Government of Canada intends to support and I will comment
briefly on the three amendments.
The first clarifies the conditions for the appointment of the
president and it says that the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board must consult the Canadian Wheat Board's
board of directors on the qualifications required for the
president and the person whom the minister is proposing to
recommend. It also directs that the board of directors must have
set the remuneration for the president before the minister
recommends an appointee. I think all members will understand
why that is a good principle.
The Government of Canada has always intended that the formation
of the governing structure of the new Canadian Wheat Board be a
true partnership between western Canadian producers and the
government. One of the ways this partnership would work is
through the corporate governance structure of the board.
Under Bill C-4 western farmers would elect 10 of the 15 members
of the new governing board of directors with the government
appointing 4 as well as the president and chief executive
officer, who would also serve as a board member.
It is felt that this role for the government is justified since
the government continues to guarantee initial payments and
borrowings, guarantees worth many billions of dollars, and
Canadian taxpayers deserve as much accountability as is feasible.
To ensure that both prairie farmers and Canadian taxpayers are
well served and protected, the committee has proposed
strengthening and clarifying the requirement that the minister
must consult the directors before recommending an appointee for
president. No recommendation will be made before the board of
directors has determined and informed the minister of the
president's remuneration.
By clarifying the requirement to consult fully with the
directors prior to the appointment of the president the amendment
if passed will help ensure that the relationship between the
president and other members of the board of directors is
harmonious and productive from the outset.
It was always the intent of the government that the board of
directors be consulted on the appointment of a president.
2035
This amendment clarifies and enshrines that intent. The
government is very pleased with the additional clarification.
The second area of Bill C-4 where the Senate has proposed
amendments concerns the means by which the number of grains under
the marketing mandate of the wheat board can be either expanded
or reduced.
As originally drafted, western Canadian producers had a process
for excluding any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley
from the marketing authority of the board. Similarly, the bill
also laid out an inclusion process for adding crops to the
mandate of the wheat board.
The amendment filled a gap in the existing wheat board act. As
it now stands under the Canadian Wheat Board, the process for
changing the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate is unclear, as every
member from prairie Canada I am sure knows.
There have been concerns expressed by producers and producer
groups about the mechanism for inclusion and exclusion originally
laid out in Bill C-4. Plenty of concerns have been expressed.
I am sure my colleagues from the opposition party are going to
get up very shortly and tell me why the matter has not been set
right yet.
The amendment responds to those concerns. The amendment would
replace existing clauses related to the inclusion-exclusion of
grains with the provision that would require the current and
future ministers responsible for the board to consult the board
of directors with its two-thirds majority of farmer chosen
members and conduct a vote among producers before any grains are
added or removed from the mandate of the board.
The outcome of that vote would have to be in favour of the
proposal to add or exclude a grain before the minister could take
any action. The government is committed to the democratic
principle that producers should be in control of any future
changes to the board's mandate.
What remains fundamental is that farmers, not government, would
be in control of any future change to the board's marketing
authority.
The third area in which the committee has made amendments
concerns the financial accountability of the wheat board and the
producers it serves.
The Senate has recommended that the Auditor General of Canada be
permitted to conduct a one time audit of the accounts and
financial transactions of the Canadian Wheat Board and report the
findings to the board of directors and to the minister
responsible.
As members of the board of directors, the 10 directors elected
by farmers will have full access to the report. The board of
directors will also control what information would be publicly
available and what should remain confidential because of
commercial considerations.
The government recognizes that producers are entitled to know
how their marketing agency is working on their behalf. The wheat
board works for them, not the other way around, and therefore how
it conducts its business is very relevant to them.
Honourable members must bear in mind, however, that the wheat
board is a major competitor in the international grain trade.
With $6 billion a year in sales, it is Canada's fifth largest
export earner.
It markets on behalf of Canadian grain producers wheat and
barley to more than 70 countries around the world. Grain trading
on this scale is a highly competitive business where information
is king and confidentiality is of paramount importance.
Who is selling what to whom and for how much is highly regarded
commercial intelligence that in the hands of its competitors
could do grievous damage to the workings of the wheat board.
Obviously a balance is needed between transparency and
accountability to producers in ensuring that the board's
operations and records are not subject to significantly greater
levels of public access and scrutiny than the private sector
grain companies it competes against.
It is in the interest of striking this balance that the Canadian
Wheat Board already is fully audited every year by respected
private accounting firms. The audit report is public information
available to anyone.
In addition to this public information under Bill C-4, 10 of the
15 members of the board of directors would be elected by
producers and those directors would have access to all board
operational information.
This would include the prices at which grain was sold, the price
premiums realized, all operating costs and whether the corporation
is running efficiently.
2040
As well, the government with this bill is very deliberately
moving the Canadian Wheat Board further from its purview. Once
this bill is passed, the board would cease to be an agent of Her
Majesty and a crown corporation. Producers will finally control
the future of the board.
All these factors mitigate the need for an ongoing role for the
auditor general to audit the books of the board. Nevertheless, if
this additional examination by the taxpayers' auditor can enhance
the transparency and accountability of the agency and alleviate
sincere concerns, the government is willing to support the
amendment to authorize a one time audit of the accounts and
financial transactions of the board by the auditor general.
The government continues to believe that with the full knowledge
of the inner workings of the board the directors would be in the
best position to assess what information in the auditor general's
report could be made public and what for commercial reasons
should remain confidential.
I commend the other place on its work on this legislation. The
amendments proposed are good ones and I am very pleased to
support the motion to accept them. It is important that these
amendments are passed by this House quickly to allow for the
election of the 10 farmer elected directors to take place this
fall to give control of the future of the board to producers.
The bill is a result of extensive consultation, the contents of
which have been discussed, dissected, debated and deliberated on,
some would say ad nauseam. It can be very truly said that this
piece of legislation is probably one of the most thoroughly
discussed in recent memory.
I strongly urge colleagues to support these very reasonable
amendments so that western Canadian farmers can move forward with
their new modern and accountable Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I really enjoyed the presentation by the minister. I
was not quite sure whether he was talking about the Canadian
Wheat Board or the Latin American wheat board. There seems to be
some discrepancy in the way he described the wheat board.
I would like to enlighten members a bit on the history of why
this bill is before the House. I must agree with the Liberal
government. It finally did bring a bill forward where it really
has consulted for about five years now, since I came to the
House.
This wheat board bill was the result of farmers being unhappy
when their frozen wheat could not be sold in 1992-93, when the
fusarium wheat was not sold by the wheat board and farmers had to
do that themselves and they found a market. They found better
prices than the wheat board had ever offered them for it.
That is what created quite a stir in western Canada. All of a
sudden farmers realized they can market their wheat and barley
the same as they are marketing canola, flax, lentils and peas and
get better prices. That is where the debate started.
I was encouraged in this House when after a lot of discussion at
the agriculture committee meeting the wheat board minister said
bring forward some legislation, let us see what we should be
doing but first we should consult. That was not a bad idea. I
must give the wheat board minister credit for that. I also must
give him credit for establishing the Western Grain Marketing
Panel which went across western Canada to see what farmers really
wanted in the new legislation.
It was astounding when the marketing panel was finished after
about a year of consultation and travelling and wrote its report.
The majority of farmers said they can live with this, it is a
pretty good piece of advice from the marketing panel. Farmers
were going to have choices.
They could decide whether to market some of their barley outside
the board or within the board. They could designate up to 25% of
their wheat to be marketed into the cash market. Some of the
more extreme farmers who wanted total freedom to market their
grain said they could live with this. They wanted to try it to
see how it would work.
2045
This is where the Liberal government went wrong. It did not
like what the western grain marketing panel told the government
and decided to start a letter writing campaign. It took four to
five months before those letters were in and the farmers had
given more advice. I do not think that advice was much different
from what the western grain marketing panel had heard.
For some reason the government and the minister just did not
seem to get it. Farmers were unhappy with the marketing system
and wanted more choice. We finally did get some legislation.
I must give this government credit again. We made another tour
across western Canada with Bill C-72 and heard the same thing
from every part of the prairies. The farmers wanted more market
choices. They wanted to have a say in how to market their
grains. Farmers grow it and have become the most productive
enterprise in the world as far as farming is concerned but they
cannot survive on the prices that they are getting for their
wheat board grains.
More and more farmers switched to special crops and were growing
less and less wheat board grains every year. This is detrimental
to our farming industry because we need a rotational system to
keep our land in good stewardship and make sure there is a good
future in farming for generations to come.
When we were finished with Bill C-72 the bill might have passed
but there was one mistake made during the hearings. It was a
very sad mistake because it created a lot of division. One of
the members on the Liberal side introduced an amendment which he
called an inclusion clause. It really caused division across
western Canada. People did not want to hear about any more
grains being put under the Canadian Wheat Board. They first
wanted to see if they could change the wheat board enough that it
became accountable and that it did a good job in marketing their
grain.
I do not think it was ever put in a better perspective than by
the Globe and Mail just before C-4. It stated that if the
Canadian Wheat Board could not be made accountable, and if the
Canadian Wheat Board was negligent in doing its duty of selling
the grain for the best price, why would farmers then want a
Canadian Wheat Board?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you were running a business and
somebody was managing the business for you and did not get the
best price for you, did not show on the bottom line that there
was a profit and that you were always in the red and could not
afford to run the business without a deficit, you would not have
the guy around very long or you would be gone. That is what
farmers are fighting for today.
Farmers are disappearing from western Canada as quickly as the
flies in fall. We are getting bigger and bigger farms and more
farmers with bigger debt problems. We are losing our agriculture
industry. That is why it is so important that we do not make
another mistake in this bill.
I agree that these amendments are going in the right direction
but they do not go far enough as far as western Canadian farmers
are concerned. What should be in this bill is a preamble which
states that the Canadian Wheat Board will have as its main
mandate to sell grain for the best interests of the farmer.
To have the Canadian Wheat Board there, to have a mandate, to do
an orderly marketing job and to move the grain is not sufficient
for farmers. They have to show profit to remain viable.
2050
Why is the government so hesitant to include that preamble or a
clause that says the wheat board's main mandate should be to sell
the grain at the best price available? It does not say it always
has to be the highest; it says the best price available. That is
what farmers were doing in 1992 and 1993. They found markets
that were better than what the wheat board was giving them.
Is that a sin? That is what I would ask the minister. Is it a
sin to provide a piece of legislation that would provide those
benefits? That is why I find it kind of hard to pass this bill
with the amendments that the Senate proposed. They are good
amendments, but I do not think they go far enough.
I see in a few notes what the Senate said after they were
finished with the hearings. It became very clear throughout the
hearings that the majority of farmers were unhappy with this
legislation.
The minor watered down amendments are not going to resolve the
problems in western Canada. They are not going to create unity
among farmers who have been debating for about 10 years whether
we should have open markets or single desk selling or dual
markets or a voluntary wheat board.
Those are the issues we will be addressing in the next day or
so, as much time as the Liberal government will allow us to
debate these amendments. I think it is very fitting that we do
not leave this House before we pass this bill with amendments
that will create more unity among western farmers.
If that is not what this bill does, we are going to get into a
situation where we will lose more of the wheat board grain.
Farmers will grow less of it and finally it will kill itself.
There will be no need for a wheat board because there will be
only special crops grown.
I want to ask you another question, Mr. Speaker. You are a wise
man, I know, and you are a good businessman. I read in this
amendment that is being proposed by the Senate that the minister
will not appoint the president unless the board has fixed the
remuneration to be paid to the president and has informed the
minister of the remuneration.
The minister can appoint the president. He can pick whoever he
wants. He can pick probably his son-in-law or his wife if he
wants to, but the board has the right to set the remuneration.
Mr. Speaker, if you had a person in your business and somebody
made you hire him and you knew already that he had been fired by
the last five businesses where he worked, what kind of
compensation would you give him? Would you give him a high
priced job? Would you set him right up at the top with all the
rest of the CEOs or would you give him nothing so this guy would
take off before he was ever hired?
I can see what is going to happen. There is going to be a fight
between the board and the directors. If the directors do not
think the president or the CEO is capable or will fill the job,
the remuneration is going to be such that he will not be able to
stay around very long. They will be changing CEOs quite
regularly. The farmers will demand that this man do his job.
That is one big problem I see with this amendment. The minister
can like the guy. The minister can say that the guy carries a
Liberal membership card, but by cracky the directors are going to
set the remuneration and that is where the problem is. I as a
farmer would say “Make him pay you something for working for you
if he does not have the qualifications because we are going to
get rid of him anyhow. Why spend money on him?” That is one of
the very big faults with this amendment.
The other fault I see is when it comes to the auditing of the
board by the auditor general. We put in an amendment that said
the audit should be done by the auditor general because most
farmers show a lot of respect and have a lot of confidence in the
auditor general. That is one piece of paper farmers would read.
Whenever the auditor general came out with a report, they did not
read much, but that they would read. Farmers know what a good job
means to an industry and what a good audit does to a business.
2055
In my area it was the talk of the town in the coffee shop when
the auditor general said that the government had again wasted
hundreds of millions of dollars on overpayments on welfare, on
foreign junkets or on whatever. They would have very willingly
accepted the auditor general auditing the books.
This amendment says that there will be a one time audit and the
auditor general can do that within two years of this bill
becoming law. He can pick the years he wants to audit. I am
sure the auditor general will be wise enough to pick the years
that are closest to the termination of the board so he has an
idea.
However if there is enough political pressure on him he could be
made to audit the 1943 wheat board books which would not do us
much good, would it? There is another problem. It should be
specified what years are audited and when the audit is brought
back. We should be given a value for money audit so we can know
whether or not the board has done a half decent job in the past
two or three years. That is another big problem I find with these
amendments.
The third one is doing away with the inclusion and exclusion
clause. It is kind of vague. According to the amendment, the
minister has some kind of manipulative power to bring forward a
vote but if he does not want to, there is nobody who can force
him to call for a plebiscite among the farmers. There is no
mechanism that you can do it or not. This could be a disputatious
type of clause where farmers could be divided.
I do not think farmers will accept this bill the way it is. It
will be forced on them. We know that after so much of the
situation where people have no say in what they do or in what
they want to do, eventually there will come a time when the
system will destroy itself.
The first time I talked on the Canadian Wheat Board was in 1994.
I heard all the comments of farmers about the unaccountability
of the board and the suspicions of the board. If the board is
not going to become more open and accountable, just the mistrust
will eventually destroy it, even if it has done a fairly good
job. But when people see a closed entity that is unable or
unwilling to give the people involved, in this case farmers, the
opportunity to see what it does, those people will refuse it
whether it is good or bad. We have seen that in other
industries. Openness, competition and fairness give us the entity
and competition needed to make a board function properly and do a
good job for the farmers.
It is imperative that we do not pass this legislation if we are
not able to include in this legislation the preamble that the
board has to be accountable and open to farmers. If it is only
going to be open and accountable to the corporation or the
minister, the mistrust will stay there and the board will never
function properly or at least not to its fullest capacity.
We have to have a system that can be trusted the same as
government is. The Liberals will realize the more mistrust, the
worse the situation is. I would bet my bottom dollar that in
1993 when the Conservative government lost its mandate, it was
probably not for the terrible job it did but because of the
mistrust that it was not doing a proper job.
They always say a government is not elected; a government is
defeated. It is the same thing with the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board will destroy itself if it does not
become accountable and give farmers the opportunity to trust it.
2100
That is why I maintain that a voluntary wheat board will make
the board function better. It will probably do more business
because it will have to compete. It is in the position to do the
best job. With its mandate and with the amount of grain that it
can access it should be able to do a better job than any
individual farmer.
I can see the point that if the trust is put back in the board
and it does a good job there is a future for the board marketing
other grains. If that trust is not put back into the board
farmers will see that and experience it. The bottom line is that
they have to put food on their table. They have to pay machinery
expenses and input costs. It has to work. If the system is not
in a position to make farming viable it will fail.
One point I want to make clear is that in 1935 the Canadian
Wheat Board was not a monopoly wheat board. It was a dual
marketing system. The wheat board was put in place to provide
competition for grain companies that were probably doing a lousy
job.
In 1943 the wheat board was given its monopoly not to increase
prices for farmers but to control prices and to allow the
government to sell grain at a lower price to our allies. I do
not think that any farmer in western Canada objected to helping
with the war effort, to taking a lower price so that they could
help the allies in their battle against the Nazis, the
imperialists or whatever they were called.
I just thought the minister would want to know that it was not a
monopoly at one time and it functioned very well in a competitive
arena. That is the direction we should go in. I hope the
Liberals are wise enough to add that amendment and take the
credit for it instead of having Reform do it for them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will now revert
to 20 minutes maximum with 10 minutes for questions and comments
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to take part in the debate this evening on Bill C-4. My
recollection, and I only go back in this place to last September,
is that Bill C-4 was the first out of the shoot. We referred it
immediately to committee. It is appropriate now in what appears
to be the dying the days of this session that we are still at it.
In the time allotted to me tonight I want to briefly review the
history of the bill and to explain why the NDP caucus will not
and cannot support it. In particular, we cannot support the
amendments that have been sent back to the House by the Senate.
This wheat board legislation has followed a long, winding and
torturous road that predates my arrival. In December 1996 the
government introduced Bill C-72 to amend the Canadian Wheat Board
Act. Our smaller caucus opposed that bill for reasons that I
will describe a bit later. The bill was then sent on to the
agriculture committee. Our party and other parties worked hard
in committee proposing useful amendments, but we were overtaken
by events and the bill died on the order paper when the 1997
federal election was called last April.
Following the election in September the wheat board legislation,
as I noted, was reintroduced as Bill C-4. Our caucus had serious
initial concerns about it but we wanted to hear what the
government had in mind and to enter the debate with an open mind.
Speaking in the debate last fall I recall saying that if those
concerns could be sorted out by the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food we would be able to support the bill.
2105
It was sent off to the standing committee but my optimism went
unrewarded. I found the committee experience to be a largely
hollow exercise. The Liberals were not really interested in any
give and take and the committee's deliberations were unduly
rushed. How rushed?
I recall very well the day that Lorne Hehn, chair of the
Canadian Wheat Board, came before the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food. We had to have as an opposition party
our amendments submitted, the ones we wanted to propose. We had
to have the changes we wished to introduce even before the
Canadian Wheat Board had made its presentation to the standing
committee. We did not think then and we do not think now that it
was much of a way to run it.
The bill came back to the House in February. Our caucus could
not support it despite our desires to see an end to the
uncertainty surrounding the Canadian Wheat Board. As we all
know, the bill then went off to the Senate and the agriculture
committee of that place decided to hold public hearings. The
senators proposed three amendments and made several
recommendations. I will describe these amendments in a minute
and explain again why we cannot support them.
First I want to summarize what it is about Bill C-4 that has
concerned us most. Fundamentally New Democrats have always
supported the Canadian Wheat Board because it works in the best
interest of western grain farmers. However Bill C-4 undermines
the board and that is why we oppose it.
How does it undermine the board? For one thing Bill C-4
proposes cash buying. We believe this will destroy a fundamental
pillar of the wheat board and undermine farmers' confidence in
it. Under the terms of Bill C-4 the wheat board will buy grains
from anyone, anywhere, anytime, at any price. This disrupts the
board's long practice of buying grain from farmers at announced
prices and distributing profits to all on an equitable basis.
Second, Bill C-4 proposes a contingency fund which will cost
farmers millions in check-offs. The fund is not needed. Farmers
cannot afford it and do not want it. The minister says that this
fund can now be capped at $30 million which is a grand
improvement over the $575 million or $600 million contingency
fund that was being talked about last fall when it was before the
Senate committee. Whether it is $30 million or $575 million we
still believe it is too much and not required.
This proposal follows from the bill's provisions which would
allow cash buying. The contingency fund would not be necessary
if Ottawa continued to provide financial guarantees to the board
as it has always done. Whether it was 1935 or 1943 that has been
the pattern of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. These
guarantees have seldom been used and as a result cost the
Canadian taxpayers virtually nothing over six decades.
We want the Canadian government to continue to provide
guarantees to farmers on both initial and final price payments.
That is the gist of an NDP amendment that the government has
consistently refused to accept.
Finally there is the question of governance. For 60 years the
wheat board as a crown agency has done an admirable job for
farmers. Now the government is suggesting that the board cease
to be a crown agency and says that Bill C-4 will put farmers in
control of the wheat board's destiny.
Bill C-4 proposes a 15 member board of directors with 10 elected
by producers and 5 appointed by the federal government, by
Ottawa. If there is to be a board of directors we have no
problem with the government naming some members to it. If the
government is to have a financial exposure, and it does, it is
only reasonable that it have some window into the board's
operations.
Under Bill C-4 the minister maintains the authority to choose
the president of the board of directors, a person who will also
double as chief executive officer of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Our caucus is opposed to this.
We believe it gives the government too much control over a board
of directors that should be accountable to farmers. The
government consistently says that it is turning it over to
farmers or to producers. However any time it gets into a narrow
corner it seems to me that it reverts to the government that will
have the hammer. I think of the fact that the auditor general,
for example, will have the power to look into and review the
balance sheets of the wheat board.
We believe that Deloitte & Touche which has been its accounting
company of practice has done an admirable job over the years. We
do not see why, particularly when the board is supposed to be
going to the producers, this is necessary.
2110
We believe that the board of directors should have the authority
to choose the president and the chief executive officer. We have
consistently urged the minister responsible for the wheat board
to make this amendment.
If the wheat board is to have a board of directors elections
must be fair. They should be elections by and for farmers. We
do not believe it is in anyone's interest to have outside
interests interfering in this process.
The amendments we proposed at report stage call for one
producer, one vote. I note that the senators agree with us on
this point and suggest exactly that, one producer, one vote.
However they did not go so far as to make it an actual amendment.
Fair elections also mean a limit on the campaign spending of
candidates just as there are in our federal and provincial
elections so that wealthy individuals, in this case perhaps
wealthy producers, do not have an unfair or undue advantage. This
was another of our amendments and again the senators suggested
that as well.
Fair elections also mean strict and transparent limits as to
what third parties can spend. The wheat board is after all a $6
billion industry and certain corporate interests would love to
get their hands on it. We do not believe in seeing them use
their deep pockets to influence unduly elections to the board of
directors.
On the inclusion clause we have always held in this caucus to
the point that one of the few things to cheer about in Bill C-4,
at least until the Senate got a hold of it, was that it made
provision for inclusion of additional grains under wheat board
jurisdiction.
Bill C-4 would have allowed farmers to decide to add extra
grains to the board's authority as well to remove or delete them.
Such an inclusion or exclusion clause would have occurred only
after a vote of producers. Our caucus strongly supports and
supported the inclusion clause. We thought that it was a
sensible, moderate and democratic proposal.
I remember very well when the Saskatchewan minister of
agriculture appeared before the committee last November and made
it quite clear that in his opinion it would be tying the hands of
the future Canadian Wheat Board to restrict to the limit we see
in the legislation the inclusion and exclusion clause. Mr.
Upshall asked who could forecast in 10 years time the future
needs of the Canadian Wheat Board and why would we go to those
particular lengths. I agreed with him in November and I agree
even more so now in view of the changes that we see coming from
the other place.
We are opposed to that and we recognize that on exclusion we
went through a little vote in 1997 by western farmers when 63% of
them voted in favour of keeping barley under board jurisdiction.
The corporate coalition and some of its partners are demanding
that the inclusion clause be dropped from Bill C-4. I have
explained why we are opposed to that.
We fundamentally believe that the future of the wheat board is a
debate for farmers and not for corporations. Frankly we thought
we heard the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
saying much the same thing last fall and earlier in 1998.
One can imagine our surprise when at the 11th hour of debate on
third reading the wheat board minister caved in to this corporate
lobby by proposing to the House that we accept an amendment that
would do away with both the inclusion and exclusion clauses,
exactly what the anti-Bill C-4 lobby had been demanding all
along. The minister's amendment would have allowed him to choose
when there would be vote to include or exclude a grain.
It is yet again another example of they want to give more
control to the producers except when they get into a tough
corner. This caucus said no. The minister claims that the board
of directors of the wheat board is for real, that it has real
power. If that is the case why did he grab power back from the
directors even before handing it over? If he is really a
democrat why did he not accept the amendment which would have
allowed the board of directors to decide exactly when a vote
should be taken?
It was in this content that Bill C-4 was sent to the Senate.
2115
The senators held their hearings, which were alluded to earlier,
and have now pronounced. The senators have proposed three
amendments and made two recommendations.
The most important of these amendments is that the existing
inclusion and exclusion clauses be deleted. This is essentially
a capitulation to the corporate farm lobby which so desperately
wanted the inclusion clause out that it was willing to bite the
bullet and accept the exclusion clause as well. It had to go
too.
This unfortunately may well have been in concert with the
minister responsible for the board, who attempted to do just that
with his eleventh hour amendment moments before we voted on third
reading last February.
We believe that the Senate amendment leaves the initial decision
about the inclusion or exclusion of a grain to the minister
rather than to the board of directors. Only after the minister
decides will there be a vote amongst producers on whether a grain
should be included or excluded.
To set the bar even higher, following such a vote by farmers
parliament would have to legislate the inclusion or exclusion of
a grain.
The senators offer an alternative that would make it almost
impossible to ever add a grain or delete one from the board's
mandate.
The inclusion clause, as I have mentioned, was one of the few
redeeming features of Bill C-4 and now senators, apparently at
the urging of the minister responsible for the board, have gutted
it.
We in the NDP oppose the bill, which effectively removes the
inclusion clause and does so in an anti-democratic fashion. It
is our understanding that we either accept or reject the Senate
amendments as a package and, because of our serious concerns
regarding the inclusion clause, we oppose the package.
We believe that farmers support the wheat board because it works
and has worked consistently in their best interests. New
Democrats join them in that support. The Canadian Wheat Board
has 60 years of international experience and is one of the best
grain marketing organizations in the world.
I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to speak with an
expert in agriculture in Chile. He noted in our conversation
that grains are the single largest commodity that flow from this
country to that South American country. I asked him about the
wheat board. He said he had talked to his millers in Santiago to
inquire of them why they would pay an extra 8% or 10% premium on
Canadian Wheat Board grains as opposed to buying them from the
Americans or on the international market.
The answer he received was that they could be consistently
relied on. They knew they would be getting exactly what they
were told they would be getting by the wheat board. In contrast,
if they purchased through the Americans, it would be about
x percentage of this or that and around that amount. He
was quite impressed that the miller said it was not worth it for
8% or 10%. They could sleep securely at night knowing they were
going to receive exactly what it was they ordered. I think that
is a very important point that is not lost on a lot of Canadian
grain farmers in western Canada.
We cannot support Bill C-4 because it undermines the Canadian
Wheat Board and in doing so it undermines any secure future for
Canadian grain farmers.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of my colleague from the NDP. I
would like to ask him a couple of questions. One is whether he
would favour putting something in the preamble which would give
the board the mandate to work in the interests of farmers rather
than the corporation.
I must compliment the member, first of all, on his statement
that foreign buyers are buying our grain because of its quality.
I have heard so often from the member for Malpeque that it was
the wheat board that got the premiums for our grain and I have
always maintained that it was the quality of the grain. It was
the farmers who were producing the grain that brought in the
extra money.
What I would like the member to address is the latest poll in
Saskatchewan. As we know, those farmers have always been more or
less very strong supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board, but the
Liberal MLA in the Yorkton—Melville area did a poll in his
constituency and he found that 62% of his farmers would now vote
for a dual marketing system. It was really surprising.
2120
I wonder what the member would say about this drastic change. It
used to be the philosophy that farmers could not grow grain
without the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first
point of the member for Portage—Lisgar on the preamble, we do
not have a problem with that. We indicated our support for such
a proposal when the bill was last before the House. This evening
I am happy to articulate a similar position.
With regard to the poll, we are all politicians and we all know
that there are polls and there are polls. We all know that polls
can be terribly scientific or not very scientific at all. Without
knowing the details of the poll that was completed by the MLA for
Yorkton—Melville, I would say that it would probably not fall
into one of those polls that was accurate 19 times out of 20 on a
plus or minus 3% basis.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
listened with interest to the NDP member.
One of phrases that he used was that the wheat board has served
farmers well. Of course the wheat board applies only to western
farmers. I have two questions for the member based on the
statement that it has served the farmers well.
First, if it is good for western Canada why do other farmers in
the country not have access to the same plan or a similar plan?
Second, how do we answer a farmer in the prairies who says that
while the Farm Credit Corporation, a federal agency, is closing
in on him, demanding payments on his loans, he cannot sell his
grain because the wheat board is not calling for it? That farmer
tells me he could sell it by putting it on a truck and driving it
across the border. He not only could sell it and get cash for
his grain right now, but he could get between two and three times
as much as the wheat board will give him in the end. How can we
equate that with the farmers being well served by the wheat board
in its present form?
It is obvious that the wheat board can serve a great function,
but in situations like that a farmer should have the right,
legally, in this country that is supposed to be so free, to sell
the grain where he can get the best price.
In my business I was never forced to take a job at the lowest
rates. I could take my choice and so it should be for farmers. I
would like the member's comments on those points.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows,
this country developed at different stages and at different
rates. We might all get some historical advice from the member
for Portage—Lisgar, but it is my understanding that there was a
demand by western Canadian wheat growers and Canadian grain
farmers several decades ago that they have a monopoly. As I
heard the member say earlier this evening, the private grain
companies were probably doing a poor job of marketing the grain,
the prices were high and the freight rates were high. There was
a demand that the problem be fixed and the wheat board resulted.
Indirectly the member is talking about the fact that the Ontario
Wheat Board now has a system of dual marketing. We are really
comparing apples and oranges because we are talking about a $6
billion a year industry in western Canada. I do not think we
want to play around too much with that or make a rash move when
we have that much exposure at stake.
2125
With regard to the whole business about being closed in on by
the Farm Credit Corporation, the need to market grain and the
wheat board not handling the commodity, I guess my comment to the
member for Elk Island would be that I honestly do not believe
that in five years' time there will be a recognizable Canadian
Wheat Board, regardless of what we do here this evening.
In the next round of the WTO, I believe that the Americans will
insist on changes. The Europeans already have the wheat board in
their gun sights. The Canadian Wheat Board, as we have known it,
even tonight in its watered down form, will basically not survive
the next round of the WTO.
We are tinkering around the edges here tonight, but the reality
is that the Canadian Wheat Board is on life support as we know
it.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I did
during the debate on the grain legislation, I must start right
out by admitting that, as a Quebecker, I have difficulty feeling
concerned by this bill.
It is my impression that this is a bit like life in a big
family, with its ups and downs, its squabbles, its unspoken
words, its misunderstandings, and all the arrangements that are
made between the members of a big family.
It is perfectly normal, because the Canadian Wheat Board and the
bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts mainly concerns the
western provinces.
I have looked at this bill carefully from the economic point of
view, as a representative of Quebec, to see where our interests
lay and the points where we would have to defend ourselves, if
there were any. Like many of my colleagues, I had problems with
the inclusions and the exclusions, but overall, throughout the
debate, I never felt totally concerned by it.
So what do I do under such circumstances? I look at whether all
farmers or all agriculture can benefit from it and I try to
direct the discussions toward that.
But since the debate has dragged on, I found myself obliged to
broaden my horizons and I started to read the western newspapers
in order to convince myself of how absolutely important this
debate was for the western farmers and also how it was limited
to that framework.
I have just heard one of my colleagues saying “But how can the
other provinces not be interested?” I think it is a historical
fact that a Canadian Wheat Board was created for the areas where
there was wheat.
I remember, also, that during the 1970s—I can talk about the
past—very little grain was produced in Quebec. It was only for
farm use, and we produced traditional grains, mainly oats and
barley.
It was in the 1980s that the government of the time, formed by
the Parti Quebecois, decided to increase farm consumption and to
focus on export.
Obviously there is no comparison between western granaries and
Quebec production, although we have made a considerable
improvement in the range of grains we grow and we have even
exported bread wheat.
That said, our marketing is naturally done in the free market,
since we are not the same sort of player as the provinces whose
prime agricultural production is grains.
2130
We are in agreement generally with the bill, because we always
agree with proposals for organized marketing of agricultural
products. This is the focus of the debate, too, organized
marketing versus the free market, with the advantages the
Canadian Wheat Board has created over time, that is, a reliable
product in terms of price, quality and delivery.
Importers needing to mix animal feed need to know who they are
dealing with and to be sure of a uniform quality product. Over
the years, the Canadian Wheat Board has earned such a
reputation.
Today, we are to vote on the amendments the Senate has proposed
to the bill.
There are technical amendments, two of which are of interest to
us because they are points we raised along the way. There is
the new clause 8.1 and clause 36.
The following is added after the existing paragraph in clause
8.1:
8.1 Within two years after the day this section comes into
force, the Auditor General of Canada may commence an audit of
the accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation for
such fiscal years as the Auditor General considers appropriate
and a report of the audit shall be made to the Corporation and
the Minister.
Many people wanted this addition, so that the accounts can be
audited.
This is an additional guarantee of good management, and will
probably also reassure producers dealing with the board.
I will not linger over the deletion of lines 31 to 40 on page
17, because this has been debated extensively. This paragraph
removes the exclusion of any class or grade of wheat, or wheat
produced in any area in Canada. This clause may be questioned
over the years.
Clause 47.1 of the bill, which was amended, reads as follows:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a
bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat
or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada,
from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or
generally, or for any period, or that would extend the
application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to
any other grain, unless
a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion
or extension; and
b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the
exclusion or extension, the voting process having been
determined by the Minister.
Obviously, greater participation by producers is desired, and if
this does not come about directly, these clauses will give
bodies producing specialized grains, whether wheat or barley, a
say.
The amendments introduced by the Senate do not pose a problem
for the Bloc Quebecois. Some of them even reflect the wishes of
the opposition and of certain producers.
I therefore do not feel I have the right to speak at greater
length, since I said at the outset that this affected us little,
if at all. We will therefore be voting in favour of the bill,
as amended by the Senate.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is nice to see that members of the government have waited around
so long to hear some pearls of wisdom that will come from these
benches as opposed to the wisdom from colleagues in the National
Farmers Union.
2135
It seems like ever since I came to the House it has been this
piece of legislation that I have been most involved in. When the
new 36th parliament was elected Bill C-4 was one of the first
items on the order paper.
I had the opportunity as a rookie member of the House to follow
this legislation through the whole process and I can say that
there was not only process but there was politics that went along
with the process obviously in the legislation of Bill C-4.
At second reading we in the Progressive Conservative Party voted
in favour of sending it to committee with the understanding that
at committee we would have the opportunity of actually listening
to the issues coming forward from the producers, that we would
actually listen to the people this piece of legislation was to
affect not only individually but as their businesses depend on
the ability to market the produce which they grow, in this case
the product being wheat and barley by western Canadian producers.
As we sat in committee we heard these producers speak of all the
issues and problems with the Canadian Wheat Board. A majority of
us outside government listened to what we heard and suggested at
that time that the legislation that was put forward by the
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was not going
to solve the problems of western Canadian producers. In some
cases with the legislation it would exacerbate the problems of
western Canadian producers, particularly with a very
objectionable clause that was put in by one of the members of
government.
That was the exclusion and inclusion clause, particularly the
inclusion clause suggested in Bill C-4 but which was not
suggested in its sister legislation, Bill C-72 which came before
members in the 35th parliamentary session.
At the committee level we put forward what we thought were well
thought out logical amendments and lo and behold, none of those
amendments passed in committee because government felt it was
necessary to ramrod this shoddy piece of legislation through
totally contrary to what the producers were telling us.
When we got back to the House after coming from committee, we
thought perhaps at that time the government would again have a
second opportunity to listen to good amendments. At that point
the government invoked closure to debate in the House about
this very important piece of legislation that affects the
majority of people in my constituency.
At that time it went to the Senate. Before I discuss the Senate
report further and some good amendments that have been sent back
from the Senate, there are a couple of things I would like to
say.
If the amendments are passed the Progressive Party will support
the legislation. We will support it reluctantly because the
legislation does not deal with the issue producers want to deal
with, freedom of choice. That is choice in how they market and
choice in how they can sell their produce outside of having a
single desk marketing system like the Canadian Wheat Board. It
does not deal with that. It does not deal with a number of other
issues. However, the amendments do modify the legislation
sufficiently that it can start the process of changing the
Canadian Wheat Board and having it evolve in the 21st century.
When the legislation went to the Senate the Progressive
Conservative Party and the Reform Party both asked the Senate to
do another tour of western Canadian producers.
2140
A number of Reform members signed a letter to the Senate asking
it if it would not take it back on the road and to listen to
those people who unfortunately the government would not allow us
to listen to in committee.
The reason I mention the Reform Party is that after the Senate
came back with the amendments, the critic for the Reform Party
sent out a press release stating that the hearings were a
pathetic attempt to justify the Senate's existence. After asking
the Senate to take them out, after asking for these amendments to
be discussed we had Reform saying that it was a pathetic attempt
to justify the Senate's existence. The Reform Party seems to be
contradicting itself once again. Not only does the Reform Party
constantly contradict itself, these cheap partisan attacks to do
nothing for trying to work together as legislators in both
chambers to make better legislation for the western Canadian
farmer.
When the Senate came back it came back with a number of
amendments. I stood in this House on numerous occasions and
spoke in opposition to the inclusion clause and the exclusion
clause. I spoke because that is what people wanted us to hear
and put forward in this package. What happened? The Senate
effectively came forward with an amendment that would take out
the inclusion clause. The minister does have the opportunity to
go back to the producers, but it is this House that will
ultimately decide whether any additional commodities will be
included in the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system. That in
itself is a very positive amendment.
The Senate also came back with a recommendation to cap the
contingency fund to a level of $30 million. This was a concern
raised to us constantly in committee where there was no
parameters with respect to contingency. It was a check-off which
producers are getting sick and tired of. It was dollars that
would be coming out of their pockets. That contingency fund has
been capped at $30 million, which is also acceptable.
I have received some correspondence from Saskatchewan canola
growers. They are pleased with some of the Senate committee
amendments and are glad that it listened. They are particularly
happy with the inclusion clause change and amendment.
A key amendment, something Reform also put forward as an
amendment, was the role of the auditor general with respect to
the Canadian Wheat Board. We felt and heard the message from
producers that if they were the owners of the Canadian Wheat
Board why was it that they were unable to get information from
the organization there to represent them. It did not make sense.
The Senate listened. It came back and said that for a period of
two years the auditor general will have the right to look at the
operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, not a balance sheet, not a
financial statement submitted by the Canadian Wheat Board but an
operation audit by the auditor general. It is good and it is
bad. It did not go far enough. We would have like to see a full
report from the auditor general to this House and to the actual
owners of the Canadian Wheat Board, the producers. It does not
go that far but it is a first good step. Again, it is an
amendment that got through not by the opposition, not at the
committee stage in the elected House but by the Senate.
There are a couple of things it did not deal with. To improve
the legislation I wish it would have. All board members should be
elected by the producers instead of the 10 out of 15 board
members who will be elected, the others appointed by government.
Unfortunately that was one amendment put forward by our party and
by the Reform Party that was not accepted by the Senate.
The last and the most important change that was not included in
the Senate amendments that came forward was the change and the
amendment to dual marketing.
2145
One of the major issues that we all heard at committee from the
producers themselves was to give them the choice that the hon.
members keep talking about across the bench. “Give us a choice.
Let us have the opportunity of a dual marketing system where we
can choose either the Canadian Wheat Board or the open market to
sell our commodities. Or at least give us the option for opting
out. At the very least, give us an option of the portion of the
commodity that we are producing so that we can market that in
some other fashion outside of the Canadian Wheat Board”.
That did not happen. That in fact is the one area of which I
say I have some reservations by supporting this amended piece of
legislation. It has not dealt with nor has it solved the
underlying problem of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The hon. member from the NDP, whom I have a lot of respect for
and who I know listened intently at the committee hearings, has
put a lot of thought into this. He and I differ ideologically on
this particular issue. He feels that this legislation goes way
too far, that in fact if the legislation is put into place with
amendments, it is going to adversely affect the Canadian Wheat
Board. I on the opposite side believe that it has not gone far
enough. What it has done with the amendments is that it has
allowed the Canadian Wheat Board now to at least evolve into the
21st century. It will give that opportunity.
The hon. member also said that the Canadian Wheat Board
organization will be changed in the next few years. He is right.
It is going to change because we as Canadians have to change
with the global economy.
We recognize that when we negotiate in the WTO in 1999, this is
one organization that is going to be on the table. There has to
be transparency. There has to be openness. There has to be an
opportunity for producers and our trading partners to see that it
is indeed free trade, open trade and honest trade. That comes
with the opportunity for choice and obviously the opportunity for
the dual marketing system.
It has been a very interesting process that we walked this piece
of legislation through from its beginning here about nine months
ago in the 36th Parliament to where we have it right now. I can
honestly state that this piece of legislation has been accepted
by virtually no one. The minister responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board alienated just about everyone, those people such as
the hon. member from the NDP who feel that it has gone too far
and those people who feel it has not gone far enough.
It has pitted family against family, brother against brother,
father against son and it still has not dealt with the issue. It
is going to come back to this House. I hope that I am here long
enough to be able to say I told you so and that we should have
done the right thing with this piece of legislation when it came
forward in 1997.
I said earlier, and I will repeat that if the amendments are
approved in this legislation, we of the Progressive Conservative
Party will support C-4 and the legislation but reluctantly. We
know that it is not going to solve all if any of the problems
that western Canadian producers have.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. It is
late this evening. I know there will be a lot of questions and
comments, so I would be more than happy to close my speech.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member for
Brandon—Souris.
I was kind of surprised though that he was attacking the Reform
Party because we are not the government. The other thing that
the Reform has done for the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is to
isolate him from the bad Liberals. We are all around him to the
east, to the north, to the west and the Americans protect him
from the south. So he is in pretty good shape. I thought once
in a while he would give us a little bit of credit to keep him
away from the hostile enemy.
I do not know whether I heard him right about the inclusion and
exclusion clause. This House will decide whether grains will be
added or deleted. That is good. I thought it would be up to
farmers to decide that. I do not know whether he made a slip of
the tongue or not.
2150
I did not think that was Conservative policy so I would like to
help him along. I would not want his constituents to hear that
he was siding with the Liberals because that could spell trouble.
I was wondering whether that was a slip and whether he had
something nice to say about the Reform Party.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to being
surrounded by Reformers as opposed to Liberals, and the hon.
gentleman suggests that I am not surrounded by enemies, I should
rethink that one. In either fashion if I did not have friends
from my own caucus surrounding me, I would suspect that perhaps
they would be enemies. However, I do thank the hon. member. The
member for Portage—Lisgar was a valuable member on the
committee.
With respect to the inclusion clause the best solution as the
member knows is to simply have taken it out of the legislation
totally, not to have inclusion, not to have exclusion. That was
the argument of the member from Prince Edward Island, that if you
have exclusion you should have inclusion. That did not happen.
We tried. We put amendments forward to do that and the best
solution that could come from this came from the Senate where it
will now go to the minister. There will be a plebiscite. There
will be a vote of producers as the member has indicated. I
suppose it is positive that producers do have the right and
should have the right to say whether it will be included in the
Canadian Wheat Board. It is another check and balance.
The final check and balance is that it comes to this House.
There is a protection there even for those producers who may
still not want to have any commodities included. We are talking
about commodities that in my estimation should not be included in
the Canadian Wheat Board. It is important that we have that
other check and balance, as the hon. member has put forward.
The best solution was not to have any inclusion as was suggested
many times to the member from Prince Edward Island who actually
put this thought forward although it was not included in Bill
C-72 in the last parliament.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest as I always do to my colleague, the member
for Brandon—Souris.
I am having trouble understanding this reference to the auditor
general. Maybe it is my thick headedness or the lateness of the
hour but I really fail to understand if as the minister has said
so frequently, we are going to put the producers in the driver's
seat on the Canadian Wheat Board, why then are we also agreeing
with the Senate amendment that within two years of the bill
coming into force, the auditor general should commence an audit
of the corporation?
At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food we saw
the annual reports from the auditing company of Deloitte &
Touche. We know there is sensitive trading information that, if
it were made available, it would have a deleterious effect on the
wheat board's ability to trade in an open market.
For the life of me I do not understand the reference to the
auditor general. Perhaps the member for Brandon—Souris could
explain that to me.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been
opposed to any type of outside transparency to the Canadian Wheat
Board so I understand why he would not understand why it is
important that the auditor general have access to the Canadian
Wheat Board. Although 10 out of 15 members of the board of
directors will be elected, it is still important that the board
of directors has the professional opportunity to bring in someone
like the auditor general to look at the operations, to perform an
operational audit.
This would make sure that what the board says is happening is in
fact happening, that it is the best marketing system in the
world. The auditor general has the ability and the
professionalism to be able to bring that talent forward and to
either agree or disagree with the statement being made by the
Canadian Wheat Board.
As for the opportunity for competitors to be given an unfair
advantage, I find that to be a very loose argument of those who
are supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Perhaps they have something to hide and they do not wish to have
those comments brought forward. The fact of the matter is that in
this amendment the auditor general will report to the board of
directors and to the minister but not to this parliament.
2155
The member also heard in my speech that it has not gone far
enough. I would have liked to have had that auditor general's
report come to this parliament so we could also see whether the
Canadian Wheat Board was providing the proper services that the
producers are paying for in marketing their particular commodity.
I wish they would have gone that far.
As it is now it is better than it has ever been. In fact there
will be a report from the auditor general within the first two
years. It will give the board of directors another tool to be
able to say that they are doing the job right or if they are not
doing the job right, how to correct the problem. That is all it
is. It is another tool and a very important tool. I am very
pleased that the amendment came forward.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on
a few points that the member for Brandon—Souris mentioned.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: How about potatoes?
Mr. Wayne Easter: How about potatoes? Listen, if we
could have an agency like the Canadian Wheat Board marketing our
potatoes, we would be happy.
The member for Brandon—Souris spoke about freedom of choice.
The fact is when he spoke of freedom of choice he spoke against
it. What a contradiction the member for Brandon—Souris is. The
fact is the inclusion clause allowed the opportunity for a
process to be set up for producers to decide whether or not they
wanted a new crop included. It gave everybody the opportunity to
be a part of that decision. That is what real freedom of choice
is and the member for Brandon—Souris talked about it. As I
said, what a contradiction.
The member for Portage—Lisgar I will admit did have it right
when he said that the Senate amendments to this bill weaken that
freedom of choice and they certainly do. The way the inclusion
clause was proposed in Bill C-4 originally, it set up a system
that gave the right to producers to make the decision to include
new crops. It gave producers the right to control their own
destiny in terms of what crops they would have under the Canadian
Wheat Board in the future.
There is another point I want to take issue with. The member for
Brandon—Souris said he was disappointed that there was no dual
marketing amendment in this legislation brought back from the
Senate. We cannot have a dual marketing system and a single desk
selling agency operating at the same time. I do not know why it
is so hard for the PC Party and the Reform Party to understand
this. We either have a single marketing system or we do not. It
is as simple as that.
If we have a dual marketing system, we really have the open
market. Producers in western Canada have clearly decided that
they do not want a dual marketing system. They want a single desk
marketing system which maximizes returns back to producers.
In terms of debating this bill this may be the last time I have
an opportunity to say anything on it so I want to say a few words
on the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee. Clearly in the
last election the very strong majority of Canadian Wheat Board
advisory members were pro Canadian Wheat Board producers. Though
I differ strongly with the strategy they put in place in terms of
dealing with this particular bill, I do want to thank them for
their years of service and their strong support in terms of the
Canadian Wheat Board. They did a very good service.
Members opposite constantly claim that producers do not have a
say. Every three or four years there is an election of wheat
board advisory committee members who advise the Canadian Wheat
Board in terms of its operations.
2200
Those producers stand for election and consistently pro-Canadian
Wheat Board producers are elected to represent producers in terms
of advising the Canadian Wheat Board.
One of the problems regarding this bill is that those producers
felt that Bill C-72 and Bill C-4 would over time because of cash
purchase and some other things in the bills weaken the board.
They were split in their position. As a result, when the Senate
committee held its hearings it was divided and did not do the
strategizing they should have done to go out there and show the
pro-Canadian Wheat Board side. I will admit on this side of the
House as a strong Canadian Wheat Board supporter that the
pro-wheat board side was not active enough and the anti-wheat
board side had more people at the hearings than we did.
That is too bad but that is the reality of the day. I still
firmly believe there are still more out there who support the
Canadian Wheat Board's single desk selling approach than who
oppose it.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been and continues to be one of the
superior marketing agencies anywhere in the world. It maximizes
returns back to producers and has shown that consistently since
1935.
I had the privilege in the last House of serving on the standing
committee on agriculture and doing a tour of western Canada as we
held hearings on the previous bill leading up to Bill C-4.
I think it was a real opportunity to hear western producers as
they came out clearly and told us that they wanted freedom of
choice, the opportunity to include new crops in the bills and the
opportunity to have a stronger say in the operations of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board operates on four major principles,
government guarantees, single desk selling, maximizing returns
back to producers and the pooling of returns.
That agency has meant a lot to western Canadian farmers and
indeed farmers across Canada, even those outside the wheat board
region, because it has meant upward pressure in the prices of
Canadian grains.
Although I personally am a very strong supporter of wheat board
commissionnaires and their appointment in terms of their
expertise in marketing, I admit out of those hearings that we
held across western Canada I conceded, based on hearing the
arguments brought forth from farmers across the country, that
maybe we had to move toward a majority of producers being elected
to the board. I think we have that in this bill.
Let me indicate where the government comes from on this issue.
The government has always intended that the governing structure
of the new Canadian Wheat Board give western Canadian grain
producers the power to chart the future of the wheat board.
Under Bill C-4, western farmers would elect 10 of the 15 members
of a new governing board of directors with the government
appointing 4 directors as well as a president and chief
executive officer who would also serve as a board member.
Given that the government will continue to guarantee initial
payments, credit sales and borrowings, guarantees that are worth
billions of dollars, Canadian taxpayers warrant some
accountability. We ensured that accountability in terms of Bill
C-4.
On that basis, a continued role of government is justified
because we guarantee the borrowings.
2205
We guarantee the initial prices under this new bill and we are
there backstopping western Canadian grain farmers in terms of the
bill. Surely there has to be some accountability to the Canadian
taxpayers and we ensure that through the appointment we would
foster.
Bill C-4, as originally worded, required that the minister
consult with the other directors before recommending a person be
appointed president. This amendment brought forward by the
Senate makes that legislative requirement to consult before
appointing much stronger and clearer and requires that the board
of directors must set the remuneration of the president before
the appointment can be made.
I have no problem with that. We heard during the hearings in
western Canada that if the board of directors, in terms of
setting the remuneration, had a problem with the individual then
it could set salary very low and then the individual would not
stay on.
By clarifying the minister's requirement to fully consult with
the board prior to the appointment of the president, this
amendment would help ensure the creation of a harmonious and
productive relationship between the president and the other
members of the board. This supports what has been the
government's intent all along. The government is very pleased to
endorse this amendment.
The third area in which the Senate has proposed amendments
relates to the financial accountability of the Canadian Wheat
Board to the farmers it serves. The government is keenly aware
of the comments made by many producer groups and other Canadian
taxpayers about the need for some sort of role for the auditor
general to help increase the level of trust in the Canadian Wheat
Board.
While the government supports this amendment, I point out the
reservation the government has had in the past. First, the
Canadian Wheat Board already is fully audited every year by a
respected private accounting firm. The audit report is public
information, available to anyone who wishes to obtain it.
Second, in addition to this public information under Bill C-4,
10 of the 15 members of the new Canadian Wheat Board's board of
directors would be elected by the producers. These directors
would be able to set up their own audit committee and request
special audits as they consider appropriate. They would have
access to all Canadian Wheat Board operating data. This would
include the prices at which grain was sold, the price premiums
realized and all operating costs. In short, the directors would
be able to ensure farmers are getting value for their money.
The government, with Bill C-4, is very deliberately moving the
Canadian Wheat Board away from its control toward control by
western Canadian grain producers. It makes sense to us for the
producers to gain more and more control.
I want to come back to my original point which was my concern
with the amendments coming forward from the other place. I
believe with this amendment that farmers will have less choice by
the taking out of the exclusion and inclusion clauses than they
had previously in Bill C-4 as it passed this House in its
original form.
I am sure the member opposite would agree that the Canadian
Wheat Board has proven over time that it is a superior marketing
agency in terms of maximizing returns back to producers so they
can try to be as prosperous in that difficult international
market with the help of the Canadian Wheat Board as they can be
in this difficult and challenging world.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I always enjoy the zealous comments of the hon. member
for Malpeque. I consider him a real promoter of the Canadian
Wheat Board. I would call him the Canadian Wheat Board's
Stompin' Tom Connors because he believes in that thing.
He would stomp everybody to death if they did not believe it. He
has a strong view on this. I am wondering why because he has
never sold a bushel to the board. The only reason I can think of
that he would support the board is because he has purchased a lot
of cheap feed grains from it for his dairy cows. I can see why
he loves the wheat board.
2210
The other question I would like to ask him is regarding the
tremendous work he was talking about that the advisory board
members have done. I am not going to argue against that because
I do not think we can really judge it by the figures we see in
the annual report.
Let us assume they did a tremendous job. Why would that not
hold true also for the directors? If the advisory board members
did such a good job, why not elect all 15 directors instead of
appointing five? Is the member saying that western farmers only
have 10 people in their constituency that could sit on the board,
who have enough smarts to run the board, that they are short by
five and that they have to pick them from somewhere out of a
political system? To me that does not make sense.
As we know before the Senate hearings the Canadian Wheat Board
finally admitted that it was one of the biggest players on the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange. I have never seen that reported in
any of their audits. I wrote the wheat board commissioner Mr.
Hehn to see if I could have an annual audit of the trading
activities to see whether it made me any money or lost some. I
also requested that from the minister. It is very slow in
coming. I do not know for what reason. Perhaps the first audit
still has not been printed. Perhaps it has not been reported in
the previous audits.
I would like the member to respond to that, to see why these
trading activities do not show up in any other annual audits.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few
questions there. Yes we love Stompin' Tom Connors, Bud the Spud
from the bright red mud, and we are proud of him.
The member's first question relates to why I support the
Canadian Wheat Board and it is certainly not because of cheap
barley. In 1974 I am sorry to admit but I believe at the time it
was the Hon. Otto Lang who weakened the Canadian Wheat Board when
he took feed grains out from under the wheat board.
I have supported the wheat board in all sincerity. I went to
western Canada as a youth president of the National Farmers
Union. I spent 10 years as its national president. I was not
like the opponents of the Canadian Wheat Board who have never
been in the wheat board offices. I went to the office and I
looked at how that system operated. I looked at how the Winnipeg
Commodity Exchange operated. I looked at how the American system
operated.
It is very clear when one goes to the Canadian Wheat Board and
looks at what is called the war room with its market intelligence
around the world and its system of transportation and how
transportation is functional to marketing and how it tries to
market that grain. It is in the business of maximizing returns
to western Canadian farmers in the wheat board areas. It has
proven it has done it.
Those people who say that it is not visible and transparent
should compare the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board
where it is visible in terms of what it has for every price of
grain, what the deductions are in terms of demurrage and
transportation, what the administration costs are. They will see
how efficient an operation it is. We do not get that type of
report from Cargill Grain or others. We certainly do not.
Clearly if members had my experience and investigated the system
and began to understand it, at the end of the day they could not
help but be strong supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board.
There is accountability. The member asked the question in terms
of 10 out of 15 directors. Why should it not be all 15?
Why would it be all 15? The board is two-thirds producers.
2215
Let us look at the government guarantees. No other agency in
the country has the amount of government guarantees this system
has. We need some accountability to taxpayers. There are
guarantees on borrowings and initial, initial guarantees.
I cannot imagine the Reform Party saying that there should not
be any taxpayer accountability. It should get with it. There
has to be accountability. We will ensure the chief executive
officer is accountable to taxpayers. At the same time we will
appoint that individual to the agency for his expertise in
marketing to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board continues to
maximize returns to grain producers and to be the kind of
superior marketing agency it has been in the past.
The member's last point was audits, the bottom line. I believe
he said they might have played the system a bit. The difference
with the Canadian Wheat Board is it played the system with some
market intelligence, with expertise in terms of the market, in
terms of knowing the political situation around the world and in
terms of knowing the weather situation around the world.
The bottom line of Canadian Wheat Board has proven to be true.
It is maximizing returns to producers. If we look at the
Canadian Wheat Board over the past 35 years and compare its
prices to those of the open market, with the exception of maybe
once out of that time the Canadian Wheat Board has always come
out on top in terms of maximizing returns.
Members opposite who happen to live in Canadian Wheat Board
areas should be thankful. They should be standing up in the
House and thanking the Canadian Wheat Board for putting those
dollars in their wallets over the years in terms of the marketing
of grains.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have two minutes
left for questions and comments. Is it possible to have a 60
second question and a 60 second response?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
that the hour is late and that members want to leave. I have been
waiting all evening to make a few remarks. As a matter of fact I
have been waiting quite some time to make a couple of comments on
Bill C-4. I will keep my comments short.
I come from northwest B.C. and I do not know very much about
grain farming. I cannot drive by a field and tell the difference
between wheat and barley. Some people say that I do not know the
difference between corn and canola.
The parliamentary secretary was saying a few minutes ago that
members on this side and grain farmers in western Canada should
be thrilled with the wheat board and should be jumping up in
support. Some of those farmers cannot jump up in support because
they are in jail.
I give the example of Andy McMechan, a farmer from western
Canada who had his equipment confiscated. He was thrown in jail.
He was led away from his farm in shackles and chains because he
had the audacity to smuggle his product across the border and
sell it privately.
Was he growing marijuana? Was he growing opium? Was he growing
cocaine? What product he was smuggling across the border in the
middle of the night? It was wheat. It was grain.
He decided that he could get a better price for the grain he
grew on his private property with his own seed that he purchased
with his own money, with his own labour and with his own
equipment. He had the audacity to bypass the Canadian Wheat
Board to sell his grain privately. He wound up in jail and with
untold costs. I am not sure what costs this man has faced as a
result of defying the Canadian Wheat Board and defying the
federal government in pursuit of obtaining the best price he
could for his own private property.
We like to think that we live in a free country.
As far as I am concerned this kind of action on the part of
government in a free country is unacceptable.
2220
I would like to ask the Liberal government whether it thinks
this is fair, whether it thinks people in western Canada should
jump up and be thrilled that they get thrown in jail if they do
not sell their wheat through the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is a vivid example of the degree of intervention our big
brother Liberal government has taken over the past two or three
decades. It demonstrates a “we know better than you” attitude.
It is nothing short of a power grab.
Not long ago a federal parliamentarian, and I will not name him,
compared Canada to Cuba in the sense of attempting to say that
Cuba was not such a bad place. He took some flak for that. A
lot of people took umbrage with his remarks. I am not sure that
he got it all wrong although I do not think it is in context of
saying that Cuba is not all that bad. It is just that Canada
ain't all that great when farmers cannot sell their own private
property in a place they choose without being thrown in jail for
doing it. We are not talking about banned substances. We are
talking about wheat and grain.
The parliamentary secretary went on at great length talking
about what a wonderful job the wheat board did. My question is
for the government, the parliamentary secretary or anybody else
who wants to defend the wheat board. I come at it from the
perspective of somebody who knows very little about grain.
If the wheat board is doing such a wonderful job of marketing
Canadian wheat, why do farmers who disagree and want to sell
their grain on their own get thrown in jail? Why do they have to
hear the jackboots of the government marching down the street to
pull them out of their farms and throw them in jail because they
have the audacity to sell their grain for the best price they can
get? It is not a free country when this kind of thing happens.
It is happening in the country today and Bill C-4 does nothing to
address it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There being no
further members rising to speak to this matter tonight, pursuant
to order made earlier this day the debate is adjourned.
Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.)