36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 240
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 8, 1999
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-85. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Constitution
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Yugoslavia
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1010
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Kosovo
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Raymond Lavigne |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Chemical Pesticides
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MMT
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Child Tax Benefit
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1015
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Grandparents Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Wood |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1020
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1025
1030
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1035
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1040
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1100
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1105
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1110
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1115
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1130
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1145
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1200
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1215
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1220
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1235
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1250
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1305
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1335
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1350
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1355
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE PERSECHINI RUN
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEUKEMIA
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RELAY FOR A FRIEND
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OPERATION BLUE STAR
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAVAL HOSPITAL
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WORLD SKILLS COMPETITION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILY TRUSTS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUMMONDVILLE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC PREMIER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARKDALE COMMUNITY CLEANUP DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIME MINISTER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KYOTO
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Charles Caccia |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TORONTO PORT AUTHORITY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA MARINE ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC'S POLITICAL FUTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AMHERST
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Subcommittee on Tax Equity for Canadian Families with
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1515
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Oral Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE HUGH HANRAHAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1520
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1525
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1530
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1535
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1540
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1555
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1610
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1630
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1645
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
1700
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1705
1710
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1715
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1730
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
1735
1740
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1745
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1800
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1805
1810
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Agriculture and Agri-Food
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Environment and Sustainable Development
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1825
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tom Wappel |
1830
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on motion deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Parliament
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
1835
1840
1845
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1850
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1855
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1900
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1905
1910
1915
1920
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1925
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1930
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1935
1940
1945
1950
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1955
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
2000
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
2005
2010
2015
2020
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
2025
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
2030
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appropriation bill
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
2035
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Parliament
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
2040
2045
2050
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
2055
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
2100
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
2105
2110
2115
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
2120
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
2125
2130
2135
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
2140
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
2145
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
2150
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
2155
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
2200
2225
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appropriation Bill—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
2230
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Nisga'a Treaty
|
2240
(Division 546)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
(Division 547)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 81 |
2255
(Division 548)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion, as amended, agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Parliament
|
2305
(Division 549)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote No. 90—Canadian Heritage
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2
|
2310
(Division 550)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2 agreed to
|
2315
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 1—Public Works and Government Services
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3
|
(Division 551)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 3 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 5—Public Works and Government Services
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 4
|
(Division 552)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 10—Public Works and Government
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
(Division 553)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 15—Public Works and Government
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 6
|
(Division 554)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 25—Public Works and Government
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 7
|
(Division 555)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Concurrence in Vote 30—Public Works and Government
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 8
|
(Division 556)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
(Division 557)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
2320
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-86. First reading
|
(Division 558)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
2325
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
(Division 559)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third reading
|
2335
(Division 560)
![V](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 240
![](/web/20061116192339im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, June 8, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
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 response to 10 petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of
the Standing Committee on Industry entitled “Research
Funding—Strengthening the Sources of Innovation”.
For two years the committee has monitored the funding of federal
research and research across Canada. We believe that Canada's
investment needs to be strengthened and we present this report
today.
* * *
CIVIL INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to implement the Agreement
among the Government of Canada, Governments of Member States of
the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the
Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the
United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil
International Space Station and to make related amendments to
other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed an honour and a privilege to present some 3,000-plus
petitioners who have come to the House with a petition. They
would request that parliament take all measures necessary to
ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence, and that federal police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our
children.
This is a wonderful petition and I endorse it 100%.
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am presenting two petitions this morning. The first petition has
been signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas
as well as communities across Canada.
The petitioners, members of the Humanist Association of Canada
and others, seek changes to the preamble to Canada's constitution
and to the charter of rights. They wish to remove the reference
to the supremacy of God in the preamble and to change the wording
of the charter of rights to reflect the fact that Canada is a
secular country which respects the deeply held views of people of
many different religious faiths as well as those who have no
religious beliefs.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition notes that the NATO attack on
Yugoslavia is illegal under the charters of the United Nations
and NATO, and that the best hope for world peace rests on the
rule of international law administered by the United Nations. It
notes that the present war, intended to reduce the persecution,
killing and displacement of Kosovars, has drastically increased
all three.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to
withdraw immediately all Canadian Armed Forces from the war and
use all our influence to convince the United Nations to arrange a
ceasefire followed by further negotiations on the future of
Kosovo. They petition Milosevic to put an end to the ethnic
cleansing that is taking place in Yugoslavia, including in the
province of Kosovo.
1010
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table a petition signed by my constituents
which calls upon the government to withdraw our military support
in Yugoslavia and to stop the bombing.
[English]
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a petition signed by literally thousands of people from
across the country asking parliament to take all measures
necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence, and that federal police forces be
directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of children.
CHEMICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions.
The first petition states that residents of Canada call on
parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use
of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been
scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences
of the application are known.
MMT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition states that the use of the additive MMT in
Canadian gasoline presents an environmental problem affecting
every man, woman and child in Canada.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to set, by the end
of this calendar year, national clean fuel standards for gasoline
with zero MMT and low-sulphur content.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is an honour to rise today on behalf of Canadians who have signed
this petition on the concept of marriage.
Recent court rulings have created a sense of public confusion on
the definition of marriage and spouse. It is the intent of this
petition to set the record straight and to ask parliament to
accept the concept of marriage as the voluntary union of a
single, unmarried male and a single, unmarried female.
Further, it asks parliamentarians to ensure that marriage, as it
has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and
protected.
I thank those who have signed this petition for representing
their views to parliament. Today we have an opportunity to
debate this issue—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Peterborough.
NATIONAL CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition on behalf of the people in Peterborough who
are concerned about children living in poverty.
They point out that thousands of children in Canada are not
receiving the national child tax benefit. They believe that in
Ontario, which has the highest child poverty rate in Canada, that
all families should receive the national child tax benefit to
help alleviate child poverty, and that it is time to amend the
national child tax benefit so that no province in Canada will be
allowed to claw it back.
Therefore, they urge the Parliament of Canada to amend the
agreement with all provinces to allow all children living in
poverty to receive the national child tax benefit to improve
their quality of life.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have another
petition here that reflects on child pornography, adding to the
140,000 that have already been brought to the House.
There are more than 3,000 signatures here from western Canada
asking for parliament to ensure that the possession of child
pornography be maintained as a severe crime.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition on the subject of human rights
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of
Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge
that Canada continues to be internationally recognized as a
champion of human rights.
The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to
continue to speak out against such abuses, and also to seek to
bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I, too, have thousands upon thousands of names of
Canadians who are disgusted by child pornography and want
parliament to take all the measures necessary to ensure that
child pornography remains a serious criminal offence. They want
to prompt the government to get its act in gear and start
enacting laws that will cut out this nonsense.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have two petitions on a similar theme. Hundreds of
constituents from Dewdney—Alouette are horrified by child
pornography and are astounded by the legal determinations that
the possession of child pornography is not criminal.
They ask parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of
society, our children, from sexual abuse and to take all
necessary steps to ensure possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence.
The second petition asks that parliament amend the charter to
prevent the development, purchase and ownership of child
pornography.
1015
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have a large number of petitions to present. Over 30,000
petitioners are adding their names to the over 100,000 already
presented.
The petitioners are petitioning parliament because they are
horrified by the pornography that depicts children and are
astounded by the legal determinations that possession of such
pornography is not criminal. They say that it is the duty of
parliament through the enactment and enforcement of the Criminal
Code to protect the most vulnerable members of society from
sexual abuse.
Therefore, they ask parliament to take all measures necessary to
ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious
criminal offence and that federal police officers be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of
children.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present to the House a petition containing the names
of over 4,200 signators who claim that they are horrified by
pornography that depicts children and are astounded by the legal
determinations that possession of such pornography is not
criminal.
Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament will take all
necessary measures to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces
be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the
protection of our children.
GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to present a petition that is signed by residents
from across Canada. It states that grandparents, as a
consequence of death, separation or divorce of their children,
are often denied access to their grandchildren by their
guardians, that the relationship that exists between grandparents
and grandchildren is a natural and fundamental one, and that the
denial of access can constitute elder abuse and can have a
serious detrimental emotional impact on both grandparents and
grandchildren.
Therefore, they petition parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the
right of spouses, parents and grandparents to have access to or
custody of their children and grandchildren.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition to add hundreds
of signatures to those already presented from urban aboriginals
in Ontario who are concerned about the federal government's
downloading of housing to the provinces. They are concerned that
the federal government is shirking its fiduciary obligation to
aboriginal peoples.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 240.
.[Text]
Question No. 240—Mr. John Cummins:
Has the Veterans Review and Appeal Board ever been given the
following information and, if so, when and by whom: (a) the
reason that the day mefloquine was administered is referred to as
psycho Tuesday or Wednesday, et cetera, by soldiers deployed to
Somalia; (b) the March 1991 CF protocol entitled “Mefloquine
Availability”, concerning (i) potential central nervous system
side effects, (ii) lingering concerns in the U.S. army over CNS
side effects, (iii) inadequate data and (iv) lack of Canadian
forces experience with the drug; (c) the problems resulting
from mefloquine use in the relief mission to Somalia as reported
in January 1993 CF medical report entitled “Medical Post-Op
Report—Op Relief”; (d) the problems resulting from mefloquine
use in the deployment to Somalia as reported in the April 1993 CF
medical report from HMCS Preserver entitled “Post Deployment
Report Op Deliverance 16 November 1992—7 April 1993”; (e) the
problems resulting from mefloquine use in the deployment to
Somalia as reported in the October 1993 CF medical report
entitled “Medical Operations in Somalia, Surgical Section”;
(f) the evidence and findings of the Somalia Inquiry in regard
to the effects of mefloquine on soldiers deployed to Somalia;
(g) that the mefloquine administered to soldiers in the Somalia
deployment was an unlicensed drug obtained through a clinical
study; (h) that the Canadian forces failed to systematically
monitor either efficacy or adverse reactions as required by the
Food and Drug Act for each solder who received mefloquine in the
Somalia deployment; and (i) that the death in 1994 of a
Canadian soldier deployed to Somalia and then to Rwanda was found
both by the Canadian forces and the United Nations to have been
mefloquine related?
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): The Veterans Review and Appeal Board
adjudicated over 49,000 cases in the past five years and does not
track the nature of the evidence presented in support of claims.
As such, the board cannot state with certainty that the
information described by the hon. member has not been before the
board. However, to the best of our knowledge and recollection
the only case where mefloquine was presented is the case
referenced in the following paragraph (g).
(a) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by
an appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(b) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(c) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(d) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(e) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(f) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board;
(g) Yes, Eric Marinacci, pensions advocate, Bureau of Pensions
Advocates, provided the information described by the hon. member
in paragraph (g) when presenting a particular case to a former
board, the Canadian Pension Commission, on December 6, 1994.
That case subsequently proceeded to appeal and the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board received the information between
September 15, 1995 and December 21, 1995 when it obtained the
file from the Department of Veterans Affairs in order to prepare
for the appeal;
(h) Yes, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board received the
information on April 30, 1999 from the Auditor General of Canada
in his report to the House of Commons dated April 1999; and
(i) No, to the best of our knowledge, unless it was given by an
appellant in the course of a specific appeal before the board.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Further to the NDP member's presentation to the House a few
minutes ago to remove God from the constitution and the failure
of the government yesterday to assure this House that position
would not—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, that
is not a point of order.
Mr. Randy White: With respect, it is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, it is
not a point of order.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to ensure that the government will not
remove the reference to God from our Canadian constitution.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. House
leader of the opposition has asked for the unanimous consent of
the House to move a motion. Does the House give its unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point
of order, amending the constitution is not done on the floor of
the House by way of a point of order and it is not our intention
to amend it using those devices.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The issue is over and
done with.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1020
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MARRIAGE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Since today is the
final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 1999,
the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and
dispose of the supply bill.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill
be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, today
the Reform Party is showing leadership on an issue which is
important to Canadians. People have become increasingly
concerned that the definition of marriage in Canada needs to be
strengthened and protected before the courts, by ruling on one
case, tell us that the opposite sex definition of marriage is
unconstitutional.
Just in the last two years alone 84 members of the House have
presented petition after petition, totalling thousands of names,
calling for parliament to enact legislation to define that
marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a
single female.
In addition, I would like to take note of a few of the recent
headlines. “Top Court Rewriting Laws of Marriage”, was
recently a headline in the Montreal Gazette. “Ruling
Alters Way Marriage Viewed: Family Law Expert...” appeared in
the National Post. “Blurring the Line between Marriage
and Singleness” also appeared in the National Post.
“Redefining our Partnerships: This week's Supreme Court of
Canada landmark ruling could send aftershocks into almost every
sector of Canadian Life” appeared in the London Free
Press. We have recently seen many more of these headlines in
Canada.
Are Canadians overreacting or do they have justifiable concerns?
Let us examine some of the recent events that have added to the
public concern about the erosion of the definition and the
concepts related to marriage.
Up until recently Canadians understood the word spouse to be
either a husband or a wife in a marriage. The courts and the
Liberal government are telling Canadians that they have it wrong.
Just in the last few months alone immigration Bill C-63 was
introduced and it will give the minister, or in fact the
bureaucracy under her, the power to define spouse as whatever she
deems it to be depending on the occasion on any particular day.
Bill C-78, recently pushed through the House, the 52nd bill that
the government has forced early closure on, dealt with the public
service pension plan. This bill removed every reference of wife,
widow and spouse and replaced them with the word survivor in
order to extend benefits previously reserved for marriage to same
sex relationships.
Last week the Minister of Human Resources Development went
beyond the Canada Pension Plan Act to extend pension plan
benefits normally reserved for married couples to same sex
relationships, even though there has been no legal or legislative
authorization to do so.
In addition, a number of court cases have served to erode the
distinctiveness of marriage and the concepts, rights and
obligations tied to it.
Many Canadians are concerned about this trend. There are two
examples of recent court rulings. The Liberals refused to appeal
a tax code case, known as the Rosenberg case, when a provincial
court redefined spouse to mean two people of the opposite sex or
the same sex, even though every dictionary, including legal
dictionaries, have always and still do understand spouse to be
the husband or wife.
The most recent development, perceived by many as a further
undermining of the distinctiveness of marriage and the concepts
surrounding it, was the supreme court's decision that the
opposite sex definition of the term spouse in the M. v H. case was
unconstitutional. With this ruling the complete section 29 of
Ontario's Family Law Act was struck down.
Concerned Canadians are watching this trend. Some say that the
last thing that remains is the full blown establishment of
homosexual marriage in Canada as a normative practice. It
becomes somewhat self-evident that sooner or later the opposite
sex definition of marriage will be challenged in the courts.
If they can rule that the way Canadians use the word spouse is
unconstitutional and must include a same sex definition of
spouse, why could they not rule that the current definition of
marriage is unconstitutional unless it includes same sex and
possibly a variety of other relationships as well?
1025
I will be sharing my time today with the member for
Surrey Central. All Reform members will be sharing their time
today.
I am not intending to target the courts. I am attempting to
describe the events which have been an increasing cause of
concern for Canadians. The courts and Canadians have been asking
for some leadership and some clarification on this issue.
Reformers believe that as servants of the people who put us here
we have an obligation to provide it.
Due to the lack of accountable leadership from the Liberal
government, the courts end up setting social policy, often
derived from a single case, using charter arguments. The Liberal
government follows with legislation saying that the courts made
the government do it and the people of Canada are left out of the
process.
Today we have an opportunity to put the people back into the
process. Let us respond to the concerns of Canadians and give
the courts the direction they have been asking for. Let us start
the process today with this motion.
Let me move to the second part of the motion, which states:
Why this wording? This is the government's own wording in
response to petitions which I mentioned earlier and in recent
letters from the justice minister. The response has been that
the term marriage is clear in Canadian law and is defined as
stated in today's motion. Therefore, let the government and the
entire House affirm this position publicly and commit to
proactively upholding this definition of marriage. Hopefully the
Liberals will not vote against their own wording in response to
private inquiries from citizens. Or will they?
Whatever the case, the vote today will allow the people whom we
are supposed to serve to hold each one of us individually
accountable, both today and in the future, on this issue. The
Reform Party has long advocated greater accountability to the
public.
Marriage, as it has been defined throughout history, is
significant to people for a variety of reasons. It would be
presumptuous of me to try to attempt to adequately capture all of
the values and rationales that Canadians have associated with
defining what marriage is in Canada.
In general, the institution of marriage has been important to
Canadian society from the very beginning of our nation. In
marriage, a man in a relationship with a woman gains insights,
sensitivities and strengths which she brings to the relationship
and vice versa. A lifelong, committed union of a man and a woman
in marriage creates a unit that is stronger than the sum of the
individuals because their differences complement each other.
In Corbett v Corbett the court said:
(Marriage) is the institution on which the family is built and
with the capacity for natural heterosexual intercourse as an
essential element.
Marriage provides a healthy biological design for procreation.
Other types of relationships are technically incomplete.
What about children? Teachers, and my wife is one, have a
saying. They say that more is caught than taught. Intimate,
committed marriage provides the best possible learning ground for
the socialization and character development of children. Boys
who have a lifelong example of a father who is patient, kind,
polite, calm, forgiving, truthful, trusting and protective toward
his wife are more likely to be that way themselves. More is
caught than taught.
The same concept applies for daughters. In fact, both genders
learn from a myriad of subtle character messages that children
pick up from different gender parents. These models help them to
decide and to relate to their own life mate. Marriage provides
children with parental fullness, versus the gender deprived
parenting of same sex relationships.
This kind of positive character modelling within and across
genders does not stay confined to the home but continues with
children outside the home and adds to the stabilizing and
strengthening component of society as a whole.
Recent Statistics Canada studies report that children in home
relationships with both parents have far fewer behavioural
problems and have a significantly higher percentage of children
who complete high school.
1030
It is also interesting to me that in a recent Angus Reid poll
young people in Canada aspire to having strong families.
Ninety-three per cent of the youth in the poll predict that their
families are the most important part of their lives. Eighty per
cent believe that marriage is for life.
It is reasonable to assume that some day there will be a
constitutional challenge to strike down the opposite sex
definition of marriage in Canada. Why wait until that happens?
Why continue to let the courts lead? Why not respond to the
people and lead instead of follow?
If we do not act now when the courts say the charter made us do
it and the Liberals say the courts made us do it, the question of
the use of the notwithstanding clause will come up again.
Would we use the notwithstanding clause to defend the current
definition of marriage? Clearly the Liberals have a position
that seems to say they will never use it. They will do
everything in their power to make sure that no one else does
either. We would not even need to enter that debate if the
government protected the definition of marriage in statute now.
In summary, the Reform Party is demonstrating leadership today
by bringing forward a motion that addresses three concerns:
first, the public concern reflected in the media and the weekly
petitions calling on the House to protect the definition of
marriage; second, a motion that uses the government's own words
to define marriage in Canadian law in response to private
inquiries; and, third, an opportunity for us all to make a
commitment to action in order to uphold and defend this
definition both now and in the future.
I hope we see unanimous support for the motion before us as it
is a reasonable expectation and certainly our hope.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is important that Canadians witnessing the debate
today understand the real agenda here. The real agenda is that
the Reform Party not only does not believe in the equality of gay
and lesbian relationships but does not believe in equality for
gays and lesbians, period.
When that issue came before the House of Commons for a vote, the
fundamental question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act
should be amended to include sexual orientation so that gay and
lesbian people would not be fired from their jobs or thrown out
of their homes or denied access to goods and services, they voted
against that basic equality.
When they say today that they want to talk about marriage, let
us be very clear what the real agenda is. That party does not
believe in the fundamental equality of gay and lesbian people in
Canada.
The member for Calgary Centre raised a number of issues. He has
made a number of statements to which I would like him to respond
in terms of the inaccuracy of those statements. He talked about
committed, loving, lifelong relationships. The fact is that gay
and lesbian people also enter into committed, loving, lifelong
relationships.
I have to ask the hon. member a question. How is it any threat
to a heterosexual marriage to recognize and affirm our
relationships as well? For gay and lesbian people who seek to
marry, why should that right not be extended to them?
The hon. member has said that some day there will be a court
challenge. I tell the hon. member that there has already been a
court challenge. So much for what he knows. Is the member not
aware of the fact that there has already been a constitutional
challenge in the Ontario Divisional Court in the case of Layland
and Beaulne, in which the court ruled that federal common law
restricts marriage to one man and one woman.
Why is he misleading the House on this important issue? Why
will he not respect the right of equality for gay and lesbian
people?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Certainly the Reform Party is committed to the equality of all
Canadian citizens before the law.
In what we are doing here today we are not against anyone. We
are simply affirming that marriage is an important institution to
Canadians. Canadians understand that marriage is a unique
institution in a relationship that involves the union of a man
and a woman.
Our job is to represent our constituents and Canadians on issues
that are important to them. We believe that marriage should
remain the union of a man and a woman. It is foundational to
family and foundational to the strength of the nation. We believe
that strong families make strong nations and marriage is part of
that.
1035
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, having
listened to the Reform member for Calgary Centre today, it seems
to me a massive contradiction to say that the Reform Party is
committed to equality and is not against anyone.
The motion clearly states a bias and an opinion to which the
Reform Party and the member are entitled, but to force that
opinion or bias about marriage being between a heterosexual
couple on all Canadians, it seems to me, is a direct attack on
equality and a direct attack on many members of society.
It is interesting to hear the member also say that a marriage
without children is technically incomplete. I am sure that all
the heterosexual couples who for whatever reason have chosen not
to have children will be devastated to learn that they are
technically incomplete.
What authority does the member and the Reform Party have to
impose their views on other Canadians if they believe in
equality? If they believe in equality, where does that authority
come from?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question although I need to clarify a couple of her points. She
is assuming I said that married couples without children are
technically incomplete. That was not at all what I said.
I said in my speech that a marriage between a man and a woman
provides for parental fullness. A marriage between same sex
couples is technically incomplete and is deprived parenting in
some ways because one gender is deprived.
The motion indicates what the government and the law already
states, that marriage is and should remain the union of one man
and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We are just
saying: let us make sure that we are clear on what the Canadian
law is and that the House stands behind it.
Apparently the member who asked me the question does not agree
with Canadian law and does not agree with the responses to
petitions that have been given in the House. That is a sad
indictment of her party.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central in support of the
official opposition's motion. The hon. member for Calgary Centre
made an excellent speech and I congratulate him on it.
For the benefit of those who do not understand the motion, I
will read it again:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
The reason we have caused this motion to be brought forward is
simply that the courts and others are asking the House for clear
instructions with respect to this matter.
Canadians are concerned about the possible erosion of the
traditional definition of the institution of marriage. Our
federal government, through the elected representatives in this
place, provide our courts with legislation, the laws of our land,
for the courts to interpret.
With respect to the sanctity of the traditional definition of
marriage, the courts have been left to defining it themselves or
calling on the government for direction. Today the official
opposition is exercising its responsibility to ensure that the
definition of marriage is reaffirmed in our federal legislature.
Marriage should be affirmed. The motion is not about being
against anyone or anything but is about being for marriage. The
official opposition believes that the term marriage is a
cornerstone of public policy and ought not to be unilaterally
changed by the courts, by bureaucrats or by cabinet behind closed
doors as is usually done.
There should be the full light of public input, parliamentary
debate and free votes in the House.
1040
Our courts take guidance from parliament on important social
policies and other matters. Today's motion is intended to give
expression to the will of the parliament on marriage, a
cornerstone of our public policy.
It is legitimate for parliament to give guidance on important
social policy matters. Parliamentarians can reform the current
status of the law, especially given debates surrounding recent
court decisions relating to the definition of spouse, et cetera.
Today the official opposition motion provides that opportunity.
There have been, there are and likely there will be future court
challenges to the definition of marriage. It would be
inappropriate for parliament to remain silent about this
important social policy term in the midst of great public debate
on the matter.
The courts often indicate that they are looking for guidance
from parliament on different issues. The motion is an
opportunity to clearly express the will of parliament. The
motion allows parliament to better engage in a dialogue with the
courts with respect to the definition of marriage.
By having a debate and a vote on the matter in parliament we are
allowing the elected representatives of the Canadian people to
reflect the views of Canadians on what they feel about the
definition of marriage, an important Canadian institution. This
is properly the role of parliament as such input is not able to
take place in court litigation.
The opinion of the Canadian people is very clearly in favour of
the current definition of marriage. In the 36th parliament 84
members stood in the House and tabled petitions from constituents
calling for parliament to enact legislation to define that a
marriage can be entered into between a single male and a single
female.
People should not be shut up. They are the ones we came here to
represent. We should listen to these people when they send
petitions to the House. The supply day motion is an opportunity
for members and parliament as a whole to stand by their
constituents and communicate so that their voices are heard.
Being a relatively new immigrant and new Canadian, I can share
with the House that many people around the world choose to
immigrate to Canada because of what they know about our country.
When they come they believe they will find the traditional
definition of marriage, a union between a man and a woman. They
trust that the federal government supports that definition. If
we did not, these immigrants might have immigrated elsewhere in
the world.
Canada's demographics have changed significantly since
Confederation. People immigrating to Canada now come mostly from
Asia. They share the social values that include the definition
of marriage we are debating today. They believe the family is an
institution, a cornerstone or a pillar of society. This strong
belief in the traditional family values is another reason they
often have joint families.
During the election campaign a young man came to my office and
asked for my views on the definition of marriage. I told him I
believed that marriage was a union of a man and a woman. He said
that he did not agree and that two men or two women could marry.
I asked him if he would like to have his own children. He said
he did not care, that having children was not important. I told
him that if his father or mother had thought the same way he
would not be talking to me.
There was silence for a moment and then he said he had never
thought of that.
1045
Later he told me that originally he would not vote for me, but
he was sorry now. He thanked me for making him realize that. He
not only voted for me, as he told me afterward, but he became one
of my volunteers.
Recently the House dealt with Bill C-78, changes to the pension
fund of federal government employees that will allow the Liberals
to make a one time $30 billion grab. One effect of the bill was
to expand the benefits of the pension plan. It extended survivors
benefits outside of marriage to marriage dependent on private
sexuality regardless of gender.
When a contributor to a pension plan dies, the benefits go to
the surviving husband or wife. The bill maintains that
provision, which is good. It also extends the benefits beyond
this point in a new way. The government said its intent was to
extend the benefits to same sex relationships as well.
The issue here today is not of same sex benefits for couples;
the issue is the definition of marriage. No sex means no
benefits. This is not the right policy. It has added a new
legal expression, a relationship of a conjugal nature with
absolutely no definition of what it means.
In conclusion, the official opposition in our leadership role is
asking the government and all sides of the House to affirm
support for the definition of marriage as being a union between a
man and a woman.
I would like to move an amendment to the main motion. I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing the words “in Canada”
with the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Surrey Central.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw
that amendment and change it. I move that the motion be amended
by inserting between the words “to” and “state” the word
“unequivocally”.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
My understanding was that an amendment had been moved and
seconded and was before the House and could only be withdrawn by
unanimous consent. Is that not correct?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The original
amendment was before the House. I will just do a little
consultation with the clerk to make sure we are on solid ground
here.
The amendment had been presented by the member for Surrey
Central in debate. It had not been presented to the House by the
Chair and in that event had not been formally introduced to the
House. It is perfectly within the normal procedure for the
member on a point of order to rescind his earlier amendment and
revise his amendment, which would then in due course be taken to
the table officers and then to the Chair for presentation. We
will do that right now.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I do not want to unduly prolong the debate, but there is a
procedural issue here which is a serious one.
As I understand it, the hon. member during the course of debate
had put forward an amendment, had moved and seconded an amendment
to the motion which was before the House.
He then sat down having concluded his intervention in the debate.
1050
He subsequently rose on a point of order and sought the consent
of the House to put forward a different amendment. Perhaps the
Chair could assist us but as I understand it, it is not in order
to seek to put an amendment before the House when rising on a
point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas has a point. I am going to consult with the
clerk and we will sort this out.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is challenging the rule of
the Chair when it has already ruled. That is inappropriate and
he is not permitted to do that when the Chair has already ruled
on the point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair is not so
insecure that he cannot take guidance from wherever it comes.
The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is quite correct. On
reflection, we had on debate recognized the original amendment
from the hon. member for Surrey Central. The member had taken
his place and did subsequently rise on a point of order. It is
established procedure that an amendment cannot be introduced on a
point of order.
Therefore the first amendment stands. The second amendment is
not receivable. We will now look at the first amendment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to
have confirmation of the Chair's willingness to be flexible and
review its decisions.
I do want to be quite clear. I understood that the hon. member
moved a motion during the debate and that is the one that stands
according to your ruling. However, I also heard you say that the
other member had proposed a motion during his speech in debate
which is not before the House. Can we have that clarified?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): No, that is not the
case. It was on a point of order that the hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas brought to the attention of the Chair a
procedural error. This is being rectified. It is better to be
rectified now than at 10 o'clock tonight.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what that
amendment was. Could the Chair please confirm it for me?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): To the House leader
of the official opposition, I do not have a written copy of the
second amendment which is not going to be introduced. I could
return the first amendment to the hon. opposition House leader.
The clerk has brought to my attention that the Chair has yet to
receive the original amendment. Until the original amendment is
received by the Chair from the hon. member for Surrey Central,
the debate will be on the motion as presented.
For clarification, the Chair does not have an amendment at this
time.
1055
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this. My
colleague from Surrey Central introduced an amendment. He had a
written amendment here which he tried to subsequently introduce.
There is no other amendment. We do not have another amendment
here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will check the
blues and we will take the time necessary to do so.
In his debate the member for Surrey Central presented an
amendment verbally to the House. The normal procedure is that
that would be signed and presented to the Chair. If the Chair
does not receive that, then we do not have it and we go to the
original motion as presented.
Therefore, because we do not have an amendment the debate is on
the original motion. It is not an amended motion. There has
been no amendment presented to the Chair.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I signed one amendment.
I gave it to the clerk and the clerk has it. It has been
presented to the hon. Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Surrey Central says that he signed an amendment. Apparently the
amendment he signed has been given to the Chair. That was the
second amendment presented to the House. It is not an amendment
receivable by the Chair.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it may
come out as a question but I certainly have a comment.
The hon. member indicated that he is a fairly recent immigrant
to Canada. He said that people come to Canada because of the
definition of marriage and that this is of great value to him. I
recognize that it is a value.
Another reason a good many people come to Canada is because of
the persecution they face in their own countries. They may be in
a same sex relationship and may not be given the same
opportunities to be treated fairly as is what happens in Canada
under our charter of rights.
To bring the marriage issue and the term marriage up as being
the most important thing and then to slam same sex relationships
is not the way to go about doing this. A number of Canadians
believe strongly that those in same sex relationships should have
all the benefits of other Canadians but they feel a great
affinity to the term marriage because of how they have perceived
marriage through Christian beliefs and through the unity of their
partnerships.
I would suggest rather than be divisive that Reform take a
serious look at its approach to things. The member should
consider seriously the real reasons people come to Canada. It is
not just for the term marriage.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons
that motivate prospective immigrants to Canada.
One reason is the definition of marriage with family as the
cornerstone of our society. What is a family? How do families
begin? The definition of marriage is the one we are debating
here. Prospective immigrants view the definition of marriage as
it is stated in the law and which we are here to reaffirm today
as one of the reasons.
That was one of the reasons I came to Canada. With due respect,
this is the definition of marriage. It is between one man and
one woman. That is what we are here to reaffirm today.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, has
referred to gay and lesbian families, the families of two gay men
or two lesbian women who are raising children as gender deprived
parenting. He said that these families are somehow deficient.
1100
Does the hon. member for Surrey Central agree with this attack
and this insult on families in Canada who happen to be made up of
two women and their children or two men raising children? Does
he agree that this is, to use the words of his colleague, gender
deprived parenting? Does he also agree, presumably, that a
single parent family in which there is only one woman raising
children or one man raising children is a gender deprived family
and similarly is a defective or a deficient family?
Will the hon. member for Surrey Central explain why he is
apparently agreeing with this appalling attack on families in
Canada who happen to be made up of gay and lesbian people raising
children?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, what we are debating
here is the definition of marriage. On this side of the House
we are not against anyone or anything. We are here today simply
to reaffirm the definition of marriage as a marriage between a
man and a woman. That is the only issue we are debating today.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
heard the member speak about immigrants coming to Canada. I was
recently at the citizenship court and heard the judge speaking to
new Canadians who were swearing the oath of allegiance to Canada
and becoming citizens. The citizenship judge in Vancouver told
them that the most important thing about becoming a Canadian was
understanding diversity and equality.
I was very surprised to hear the comments from the member that
somehow the particular view that the member holds would be
enforced on all other Canadians.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, my constituency is one
of the largest constituencies in Canada. I have a diverse
population in my riding. I am here to represent my constituents.
They have been calling to tell me that they want to reaffirm the
definition of marriage as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the
motion this morning on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Let me clearly state that the Government of Canada will be
supporting the motion in the House today. The fact that we will
be supporting the motion should come as a surprise to no one. I
would like to thank the hon. member for tabling the motion for
the consideration of the House and for giving the government the
opportunity to clarify our position on this important issue.
We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a
central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians.
It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second
only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.
[Translation]
The institution of marriage is of great importance to large
numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in
the hon. member's motion is clear in law.
[English]
As stated in the motion, the definition of marriage is already
clear in law. It is not found in a statute, but then not all law
exists in statutes, and the law is no less binding and no less
the law because it is found in the common law instead of in a
statute.
The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied
in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that
marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others”. That case and that definition are considered
clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts.
The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition.
The Ontario court, general division, recently upheld in Layland
and Beaulne the definition of marriage. In that decision a
majority of the court stated the following:
—unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”,
because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in
effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a
change in the definition of marriage. I do not think the Charter
has that effect.
1105
One may then ask why we are here today and why we are using the
already limited time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I
suspect, there will be no fundamental disagreement inside or
outside the House.
I am aware, as are other ministers, that recent court decisions
and resulting media coverage have raised concern around the issue
of same sex partners. It appears that the hon. member believes
that the motion is both necessary and effective as a means to
keep the Government of Canada from suddenly legislating the
legalization of same sex marriages. That kind of misunderstanding
of the intention of the government should be corrected.
Let me state again for the record that the government has no
intention of changing the definition of marriage or of
legislating same sex marriages. No jurisdiction worldwide defines
a legal marriage as existing between same sex partners. Even
those few European countries such as Denmark, Norway and Holland,
which have recently passed legislation giving recognition to same
sex relationships and extending some of the same benefits and
responsibilities as available to married spouses, maintain a
clear distinction in the law between marriage and same sex
registered partnerships.
Norway's ministry published a statement in 1994 that makes this
distinction clear. Although a same sex relationship may have many
of the same needs, the Norwegian government clarified that it, the
same sex partnership, can
—never be the same as marriage, neither socially nor from a
religious point of view. (Registered partnership) does not
replace or compete with heterosexual marriage—(and the)
opportunity for homosexuals to register their partnerships will
not lead to more people opting for homosexual relationships
rather than marriage.
I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change
the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality
issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.
The courts have ruled that some recognition must be given to the
realities of unmarried cohabitation in terms of both opposite sex
and same sex partners.
I strongly believe that the message to the government and to
all Canadian governments from the Canadian public is a message of
tolerance, fairness and respect for others.
For those who remain concerned, I would point out that recent
surveys of young people indicate that marriage has not gone out
of style in Canada. The majority of young people still expect to
marry. The marriage rate is still similar to that of the 1920s,
although a rising number are re-marriages, and that Canadian
marriages still on average last longer than those in the United
States.
The motion speaks of taking all necessary steps to preserve the
definition of marriage in Canada. While I and the government
support the motion, I feel strongly that marriage is already
very clear in Canadian minds and in Canadian law, and that there
is little that the House must do as a necessary step to in any
way add to the clarity of the law.
Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and
we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and
value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to
have their long term relationships recognized. I support the
motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in
Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of
all others.
At this time I would like to move an amendment to the motion.
I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word “steps”
the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada”.
1110
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe that the seconder of the motion is required to
be in his or her seat when he or she seconds. The member was not
in her seat at the time of the seconding and I therefore think
you should consider the motion null and void.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As a matter of
interest, I checked with the clerk on exactly that point no more
than 30 seconds ago. I was informed that the member needs only
to be in the House, recognized by the Speaker as a legitimate
member, and to be anywhere within the purview of the Speaker.
The amendment is in order and is accepted. The debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Minister of Justice for supporting the motion. I also
agree with her comment about marriage being an important
institution.
She posed a couple of questions in her speech. She asked why we
are here today and then put out the suggestion that it is a
redundant motion.
I went to sleep last night thinking about the motion. Often in
the House we get so caught up in the day to day activities and
with what is in the press that we sometimes lose focus on the
truly important issues. Sometimes things create a life of their
own. As we have seen many times through the courts on various
issues, completely separate and apart from this, they do create a
life of their own and the courts are left to interpret.
Does the Minister of Justice agree that parliament is the
supreme lawmaker of the country? Is it not very important for
the courts to get a very clear, simple message from the
Parliament of Canada on where we stand on this issue? In the
past in many cases we have not done that and we have left it up
to the courts to shape the law of the country. The Minister of
Justice and I both recognize that happens all the time.
Does the Minister of Justice not think that this will send a
very clear signal to the courts on where the Parliament of Canada
stands on the issue?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think the point I have
tried to make on behalf of the government is that we do believe
that the definition of marriage is clear. It is clear in the law
of Canada and it was the courts that made the definition clear.
As I indicated in my comments, the definition of marriage as a
union between one man and one woman is found in the common law of
our country and the common law of our system of law. It is also
found in the civil law of the country. This is clear and we are
therefore able to support the motion as presented by the official
opposition. If it is believed that some clarity is required
around that, so be it.
We thought perhaps we could spend our time debating other issues
as opposed to that on which there is clarity in the law.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): You have no idea how
much I enjoy the opportunity to stand and interrupt the Minister
of Justice because when we first met 10 years ago I could not
interrupt her. However, this time I can.
1115
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister and is with regard to the amendment
that has been moved in the House.
I think she would agree with me, given the nature of the
amendment, that jurisdictional controversies in terms of
authority, be it federal or provincial, is extremely clouded in
this area. I quote from Professor Hogg:
In terms of the main motion there is some question as to the
power and jurisdiction of the federal government. Would the
minister agree with me on that?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon.
member's comment and that of Professor Hogg, dean of Osgoode Hall
Law School. There is divided jurisdiction in the area of family
law and divided jurisdiction in relation to marriage. The
federal government has jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.
The provinces have jurisdiction over solemnisation.
That is why I moved the amendment. I wanted to clarify for
everyone in the House and in the country that we as a parliament
are operating within our jurisdiction. We are not arrogating to
ourselves any jurisdiction that we do not have. Obviously we
could not do that.
I would hope the official opposition, of all parties, would
adopt the amendment and support it. It is important in this
federation where we acknowledge diversity and the role of the
provinces that we make clear parliament supports the motion
operating within its constitutional jurisdiction, however that
might ultimately be defined by the courts of the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the opposition motion, as amended by the Minister of Justice,
addresses an extremely important issue. I think it would be
worthwhile for the House to express its views on this issue,
which merits reflection.
I am a bit bothered by the turn the debate is taking. I think
there is a slight difference between the motion as drafted and
what I am hearing, and that is what is bothering me. I have the
feeling Reform Party members want to oppose two concepts. They
are using the topic of marriage to oppose the rights of gays and
lesbians. It would appear that they want to steer the debate in
another direction.
Contrary to what the government will be doing—and I do not know
about the opposition parties—the Bloc Quebecois will allow a free
vote on this issue. Members will be able to vote according to
their conscience. This is very important, given the underlying
implications.
Personally, I think this is a poor time to debate this issue in
the House, before there has really been a substantive public
debate. This is an issue to which society must give some
thought, one whose evolution over time it must consider. One
cannot simply spring it on people as something parliamentarians
must vote on.
Canadian and Quebec law and society are evolving. What marriage
was considered to be in Great Britain in bygone times may not
necessarily hold in 1999 in Canada and Quebec. The minister
cited case law that goes back a few years.
I would like the House to consider the question of marriage from
a much more contemporary angle.
On May 20 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on
an equally important matter, the question as to whether partners
of same sex relationships were entitled to support payments under
Ontario's Family Law Act.
I can understand that such a ruling would upset some Reformers.
1120
Here again the justices of the supreme court simply applied
existing principles of law. They did not invent the wheel. I do
not think this lends itself to wild demonstrations in Ontario,
in opposition to the interpretation of these Courts have given
to the Ontario Family Law Act.
I think things have changed. Had the same decision been rendered
25 years ago, I have no doubt that we would have demonstrated in
the streets. Today people are perhaps more open than they were
on a similar subject.
In Quebec, I would say we are in the lead. The national assembly
has taken extremely important steps to try to establish some
equality.
Regardless of whether people recognize it, approve it,
disapprove of it or not, the fact exists in Quebec society, and
the members of the national assembly recognized it.
It was not a decision by the PQ government alone. It was a
unanimous decision of the national assembly. I must point that
out, because it is not every day there is a consensus in the
national assembly or in a parliament. I think it was Bill 32,
which obtained the unanimous support of the national assembly to
amend a series of acts. If I recall correctly, 28 statutes and
11 regulations were amended in order to give gay and lesbian
couples the same rights as couples in a common law relationship.
This is a step forward, and I think it is one that received the
approval of the people of Quebec.
As we can see, things are changing. We are mulling this question
over.
Today, in a motion, the Reform members want to block any
discussion of this issue. I think it is too early.
It is proper to speak of it because outside the House, in the
society as a whole, in our families, it is important for people
to tell us what they think about it and how they see things.
Those who are adamant that marriage be between a man and a woman
are afraid that one day gay and lesbian couples will claim the
right to adopt and other rights. They wonder where their demands
will end. This is a legitimate question.
I think that we still have not enough information to be able to
make a definite position on such an important issue as this.
I believe that marriage is a indeed sufficiently important
institution in Canada and in Quebec to warrant our taking the
time to address it and to have a definition that is the most
representative of the society in which we are living in 1999, on
the eve of the year 2000.
There are a number of different concepts involved. There is
marriage, there is union, there is the couple. There are a
number of different concepts, and I believe that each one needs
to be defined.
I had a bit of fun looking up the definition of marriage in the
Petit Robert. In the latest edition of the Petit Robert, it is
defined differently than in the one dating from ten years ago.
At that time it was defined as the union between a man and a
woman.
Today, in the most recent edition of the Petit Robert, it is
defined as the lawful union of two persons under conditions set
out in the law.
The dictionary definition of marriage has changed. This means
that the definition is an evolving one. A societal debate is
required in order to reach a definition.
That leads me to another point I want to address. Initially the
Minister of Justice introduced an amendment to the motion to add
the words “within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada”.
It is far from clear where the Canadian government's
jurisdiction over marriage begins and ends.
I have consulted certain documents by constitutional experts in
order to see what point we have reached in the evolution of
jurisprudence and Canadian constitutional law in this
connection.
1125
In the last edition of their tome on constitutional law, Henri
Brun and Guy Tremblay, two PhDs in law from Laval University's
faculty of law, have the following to say about apportionment
and jurisdiction as they relate to marriage:
The era of the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over
marriage has to do with the fundamental conditions, i.e.
capacity of the parties, and impediments. The concurrent
provincial jurisdiction with respect to the solemnization of
marriage has to do with the preliminary formalities, including
obtaining parental consent, in the case of minors.
... and it has to do with the actual conduct of the ceremony,
including the competence of those officiating.
And in the exercise of their jurisdiction, the provinces, like
the federal government, may stipulate sanctions up to and
including annulling a marriage.
In other words, when it comes to marriage it is not clear what
is exclusively federal and what is exclusively provincial. The
line is fairly blurred and over time the provinces have
acquired increasing powers with respect to marriage, as opposed
to divorce, which has always come under the exclusive
jurisdiction of Ottawa.
Here too, things have evolved. I will take this opportunity to
make my oft-repeated point: if the federal government were to act
in good faith, it would withdraw completely from this
jurisdiction and allow the provinces complete freedom to
legislate with respect to marriage and divorce.
That being said, I think this is an important debate and one
which merits public discussion. We cannot give a fast cut and
dried answer to this issue, and there should be a much broader
discussion. At the same time, great care must be taken not to
interfere in what may, according to long-standing custom, be
provincial jurisdictions.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member made reference to the dictionary and I thought I
would share with him a reference from the dictionary which I
looked at this morning. It has to do with the word
discrimination.
The hon. member will know that for some members who argue this
case the issue here is equality and to not extend equality is to
discriminate against a particular group of people. We certainly
have seen that in court decisions.
In the dictionary the definition of discrimination includes a
mixture. It includes prejudice, bias and victimization, but it
also includes distinguishing between favouring or giving notice
to. It dawns on me that within the dictionary and within the
context of discrimination there is negative discrimination and
there is affirmative discrimination.
Would the hon. member like to comment on whether or not he
believes that denying same sex marriages is in fact a question of
negative discrimination or affirmative discrimination?
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question
depends on the values of our society as a whole. The hon. member
would like me to specify whether this is a form of negative or
positive discrimination. I would be tempted to say that it is
negative discrimination, given that I am someone—and I speak very
personally—who is very open.
If someone put this question to me six or eight months ago, or a
year ago, my answer might have been different.
Today however, with the baggage I carry, with experience, and
with what I regularly run into in a riding like
Berthier-Montcalm, which is not near the island of Montreal,
where there are gay neighbourhoods, but which has men and women
with problems relating to their sexual orientation who come to
see me, I think that discrimination as the member understands
it, is negative. But this is really a very personal response.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a very direct question for my Bloc colleague.
In the motion before the House for debate today it states that
it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court
decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union
of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
1130
I would like to ask my colleague from the Bloc if he personally
agrees with that statement. Is he speaking for himself, his
constituents or his party when he gives his answer to that
question? It is a very direct question and I would like to know
whether or not he supports that statement.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is
because we do not speak the same mother tongue, but I answered
this question at the very outset.
As far as the vote is concerned, I was speaking very personally.
For the Bloc Quebecois, the vote will be a free vote. I think
the member can understand what that means.
As to the second question, about whether I represent my voters,
I will ask him the same question. Is he fairly representing his
constituents when, without holding a substantive debate, without
a public debate, his party brings such a motion to the House in
order to put paid to any potential definition of marriage
without even consulting the public at large? Does the member
properly represent the voters in his riding?
I will not answer this question, but I leave a great big
question mark.
At the moment, it is impossible to make a definitive statement
on such an issue, because in my riding, as throughout Quebec and
across Canada, we have not looked seriously at the issue.
Clearly no responsible decision on the matter can be taken using
all the stereotypes brought up by the member.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to address this motion today, especially
following some of the eloquent and learned comments that have
been made by the speakers preceding me. I particularly want to
comment later on in my remarks on the Minister of Justice's
amendment to the motion. I think it is an important amendment.
First let me say that there is no greater spiritual union than
that of marriage. There is no more intimate spiritual union than
that of someone who makes a commitment for life to an idea, to a
person, to what they believe. We use that word marriage. It is
the most private commitment one can make. Although we celebrate
marriage as a public event, the reality is the signing of papers,
the commitment that is made in writing, the commitment that is
made before God is perhaps the most private and intimate
commitment we can make as human beings.
I say that because the word marriage has been talked about in
terms of definitions. An hon. member from the government side
and an hon. member from the Bloc went to the dictionary to define
marriage. We have commented that it changes with time and it
does, but it is clearly to correlate a pair, it is clearly to
join together. In fact, those of us from the maritime provinces
grew up knowing
that when we splice the ends of a rope together, we say we marry
them. When a carpenter joins together certain pieces, they are
married. We marry up certain things.
When I talk about the intense commitment of one person, I think
about one of my relatives. She will not be happy that I am saying
this publicly, but I believe next year she will celebrate her
50th anniversary. Fifty years ago she put on a wedding ring. She
made a commitment. She has stayed true to that commitment. Her
marriage was to her church. Her marriage was to the ideology and
the beliefs she believes came to her intimately and that is the
career to which she is married. That is the intimate contract
she has made with whom she sees as her God.
Marriage takes all kinds of forms. From reading history we know
that Elizabeth I under pressure from France, from her ambassadors
to marry the king of France, to marry the king of Spain, finally
came to parliament and said “Behold lords, I am married. See
the ring. I am married to England”.
1135
Marriage has many connotations. We have to bear that in mind
because we are dealing with words. Words in this chamber are
important. I look at the motion in that light; I look at it in
terms of what the words are. Some of them are important. We
have had definitions of marriage and what it means.
I have some concern with the motion when it says that parliament
will take all necessary steps to preserve that definition. We
need clarification on that. I do not know what that means.
Obviously it could mean invoking the notwithstanding clause of
the constitution should the courts at some future date overrule
what is contested here as being the legal definition of marriage,
but how much further do we go if we invoke the notwithstanding
clause? Do we go further than that? If two individuals of the
same sex, let us say, decide that they will fill out forms and
say that they are married, how far do we go to preserve the
definition? We need some clarity on that.
We look at the constitution. I am glad the Minister of Justice
made the amendment, because when I first read this motion,
something did not sit right. It has been a long time since I
have been in law school, but somehow I thought, there is a
jurisdictional issue here and I do not know what it is. I did a
little research. It has been commented on by my colleague from
the Bloc. Professor Hogg said:
The federal authority in relation to “marriage”—the first
branch of s. 91 (of the BNA Act)—has to be read side by side
with the provincial authority in relation to “the solemnization
of marriage in the province” (s. 92 of the BNA Act). In fact
most of the laws concerning marriage have been enacted by the
provinces, and the courts have tended to construe the provincial
power liberally. The scope of federal power has been left
largely undetermined.
I put that question to the minister and she agreed with me. I
do not know what it means to the House that the minister and
myself agree. There is Professor Hogg who may be a little more
authoritative. I cite again:
The only federal law ever to come before the courts was one which
declared that every marriage performed in accordance with the
laws of the place where it was performed was to be recognized as
a valid marriage everywhere in Canada.
It goes on to say that it was challenged, but their lordships
expanded the power of the provinces.
We are debating a motion that clearly is one of those that
overlaps the two spheres of federal and provincial authority. I
caution the House on that. We have to be very careful before we
interfere with the jurisdiction of the provinces.
A red light went on when I read this motion. I remember when I
was married that we applied to the province for a marriage
licence. It is the province that sanctions the marriage. It is
the federal government that sanctions divorce.
We have to bear in mind those words and those jurisdictional
questions when we look at this motion. They require further
debate. We will hear about that as the day wears on and it will
be a long day. I understand we are here until 6.30.
We also have to go behind the motion. This has been commented on
by the mover and seconder of the motion. We began discussing what
marriage is and what it should be and whether or not this
government has the power and jurisdiction to enforce the legal
definition. Then we moved into a debate about recent court
rulings. It is fair to say that there is a great separation here
between what is marriage and what the courts have determined in
terms of same sex benefits.
There has been some comment by both the mover of the motion and
the seconder or the speaker who immediately followed him in
reference to some of the cases. The mover of the motion cited
the Corbett case when he mentioned that the supreme court has
determined what marriage is. In that definition, which is the
court's and not his, he says it clearly requires the physical
sexual intercourse relationship, the intimacy of that physical
relationship.
It will be noted that in my opening remarks I did not refer to
that.
Marriage is a spiritual union more so than a physical union; even
more so is the spiritual element of it.
1140
If this debate is really about limiting benefits to same sex
individuals, I would go further than that. A constituent came up
to me and said, “I have no problem with this issue of same sex
benefits. I think it should go further. Why should I be
precluded from naming as my survivor my daughter who has looked
after me for 20 years?” Why should two sisters
who are elderly and have looked after each other their whole
lives, be prohibited from the rights of survivorship that we
traditionally ascribe to a husband and wife?
If this debate is really about fear of extending same sex
benefits that were traditionally to a husband and wife to members
of the same sex who have a longstanding relationship or to
members of the same family who have a longstanding relationship,
then I think that is a different debate altogether. I have some
concern that that may be the underlying thrust given the comments
that have been made and all the references to same sex benefits
and supreme court decisions.
In light of that, it is a complex motion. I applaud the member
for bringing it before the House because it is an important
motion. But those are questions we will have to hear from the
Reform Party on in terms of clarifying this important issue as
the day wears on.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party has articulated a tolerant message on
the situation. Overarching the motion which we are putting forth
today is one of tolerance. I want to make that clear. I applaud
the Minister of Justice for her fine speech most of which we
agree with—
My hon. colleague touched on a very important issue, that of
registered domestic partnerships. If we take the concept of what
people do in their bedrooms behind closed doors completely out of
this issue, it will enable us to uphold the traditional concept
of marriage, one which this party supports. It will also enable
us to recognize and respect the diversity of relationships that
occur and the reciprocal relationships of responsibility and long
term commitment that exist in our country.
I ask the member from the NDP whether he would support the
concept of registered domestic partnerships when it comes to
dealing with the issue of benefits.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have some history and
experience in this regard, having practised family law for some
10 years.
I not only encourage registered domestic partnerships, I
encourage marriage contracts. I have represented many people who
have been through difficult divorce situations. I represented
people in common law relationships, before the courts took the
initiative to define what were the rights of people who had not
gone through a marriage ceremony but who lived in a common law
relationship for a long time. It seemed to me it would have been
a whole lot clearer, a whole lot saner, a whole lot easier and
probably a whole lot cheaper if those parties had registered what
the nature of their agreement was, what assets would be divided,
what assets would be shared, what obligations if any would arise
from the termination of the relationship.
Registered domestic partnerships are a good thing. They lend
clarity. In terms of survivor benefits, I agree it would take
care of the issue I raised which was brought to me by a
constituent about someone who wants to ensure that the person who
has looked after them who may be a family member is entitled to
share in the benefits that a traditional spouse before the
supreme court changed that definition would have shared in.
I thank the member for the question. I think it is an important
question. I would have no objection to it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier the NDP member for Vancouver East and the NDP member for
Burnaby—Douglas talked about equality and that to deny equality
to gays and lesbians is inappropriate and we have to address
that.
The government and now most members who have spoken have said
that they support the definition of marriage which is in the law,
that of a man and a woman and to the exclusion of all others.
We then are faced with the proposition that anybody who supports
heterosexual marriage, to the exclusion of same sex marriages, is
going to be labelled as a homophobic. It is clear that anybody
who supports heterosexual marriages will then be labelled as
homophobic. I want the member's reaction to that.
1145
There is a commercial on credit cards which says that membership
has its privileges. When the member considers the decisions of
Egan, M. v H., Rosenberg, et cetera, it is clear that all of the
privileges of marriage are no longer distinctive and
distinguished.
The only thing that same sex partners do not enjoy right now are
property rights, which can be dealt with as common law couples
do, by contract.
The fundamental question is this. If there is marriage, but if
there are no privileges and no distinction to marriage, then does
it not just become a piece of paper? Why is it that the
Government of Canada, the laws of Canada and virtually everybody
in the House support marriage with no privileges?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the
question concerned equality. I am paraphrasing, but my
recollection of Aristotle is that he said equality means that all people
are entitled to the same thing. It is a simple definition but,
like everything Aristotle said, it is open to interpretation and
it has been for some three centuries. I would also look to section 15
of the charter of rights and freedoms in determining that
equality does mean that people are entitled to the same treatment
before the law.
I do not think the hon. member meant this in the harshest tones
in which he said it, that everybody who supports heterosexual
marriages is seen as being homophobic. I do not think that is
true. I know many homosexuals who support heterosexual
marriages. I support heterosexual marriages, as I am in one.
However, I do not think it is fair to say that people who came to
our wedding are homophobic, because they certainly are not. I
know he did not mean it in that context. I think that requires
some clarification.
In terms of equality, I would look to section 15 of the charter
and I would look to the court's interpretation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive
Conservative Party to take part in this debate. The hon. member
for Calgary Centre has brought forward an issue that raises a
great number of questions, perhaps more questions than we will be
able to deal with in the time allotted for this debate.
The difficult aspect that I have with the motion and the wording
of the motion is that it talks of the need to deal with this
issue, which suggests that it is one of timeliness. I have to
take some umbrage with that. I find myself agreeing with much of
the discussion and the debate that is taking place, in particular
when it was stated clearly by the Minister of Justice and echoed
by other members that the definition of marriage already has
quite a clear definition in common and civil law in this country.
The acceptance of that reality in Canada is such that it leads
me to question the necessity for this debate at this time,
particularly given some of the very topical and more timely
issues that exist.
We know of the strife that currently exists in places like
Yugoslavia. We know, as well, that within our current justice
system there is much that needs more full and open debate. We
know that there is a crisis on the agriculture scene in western
Canada, where most, if not all, Reform Party members find their
homes. We know that tremendous challenges are being faced by our
citizens in Atlantic Canada because of high unemployment and
downturns in traditional industries like the fishery.
That is not to say for a moment that this issue is not one of
importance. It is certainly one that I would suggest raises a
great deal of emotion, which sometimes leads to extreme lines of
thought.
1150
Although it is an important issue, and is indeed important for
those assembled here today and for those across the country to
reflect on, I would suggest, given the amount of time that we
have and the issues that are currently before us, that this is
not something in which we should become bogged down. In
acknowledging that marriage has very sacred and religious
connotations and implications, and that there is always the need
for the involvement of the church in this type of debate, there
is also a need to acknowledge that there is a great deal of
tolerance and clear thinking that has to be put forward before
one draws clear legal definitions in the sand.
In my previous statement I said that the definition of marriage
remains in place and intact to this time. To suggest, as is
presumptive in this particular motion, that this is somehow under
attack and is an issue of panic or urgency for Canadians is a
misrepresentation.
This motion is very broad and asks for an affirmation, I
suggest, of what already exists. The motion restates the current
state of the law, both common and civil. Therefore, I question
the nature of the motion, but I also question the motive for this
debate. I cannot help but suggest that it is a presumptive and
provocative attempt to raise what is considered a very divisive
issue.
That is not to undermine the importance of the issue. There are
many who would argue, in fact we have heard the argument today,
that there is an erosion of social morals and that it stems from
a decline in the institution of marriage. I personally do not
prescribe to that thought. I believe that it runs much deeper
and is far more complicated. My friend, the previous speaker
from the New Democratic Party, spoke very eloquently about the
intimacy and the personal elements of marriage. I believe that
to be very true.
This motion does not call for specifics. It does not call for
an amendment to current legislation, particularly the Criminal
Code. It does not speak of charter amendments. It does not
speak of highlighting one particular right over another. It
calls for the Government of Canada to acknowledge that this is an
important issue. I think we have been given fairly concrete and
static assurances from the Minister of Justice in her appearance
in the House today.
What the motion does not do is dwell on the important issues
which, in a sense, I feel we have perhaps a higher degree of
responsibility to respond to in a timely fashion. We do not talk
about jobs, health care, education, a desire for a better quality
of life or deal with conflict where we find it. In fact, this is
an attempt to seek out a conflict on a moral issue. I am afraid
that leaders sometimes simplify issues that divide instead of
bind our Canadian people.
Some day there may be a challenge to the constitutional
definition of marriage. We heard from a speaker today that this
has occurred in the province of Ontario, and it may occur again.
Again, it underscores that there is a sense of paranoia that the
courts will completely betray us. There have certainly been
controversial decisions made, but they will be remedied over
time. There will be an opportunity for us to reflect on them and
to make corrections when needed in this legislature.
Why on the last day do we find ourselves, before we are to grant
supply to the government, discussing an issue such as this? I
cannot help but suggest that there is some degree of an attempt
to raise ire and hackles and to divide individuals, not only in
the House amongst party affiliations but around the country, for
crass political gain.
We are going to be exercising our rights in the House of Commons
today to raise grievances before voting on all of the money that
the Government of Canada is going to spend in the coming year.
To a certain degree this allotted day is a little different than
any other day. This day has a greater priority. We have an
opportunity to bring grievances to the Government of Canada.
This is an ancient right that we can exercise in this place. It
is an opportunity for us to remind the government that there is a
greater degree of accountability and responsibility that it
should be exercising.
I suggest that the government has in many ways abused the
privileges and its relationship with parliament. To a degree we
know this is happening. There is strife within the caucus of the
government.
We have an opportunity to send a message to the government today
with respect to our confidence in the job that it is doing in
representing Canadians. One of the messages that I believe
should be sent is that we are not having enough opportunity to
interact directly with ministers of the crown at committee or in
the House.
Time and time again we see important announcements made in the
press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. We have a
very limited opportunity to interact at the committee level. We
have one hour wherein we might be able to pose a handful of
questions and receive very packed, evasive, non-informative
answers.
1155
There is a message that can be sent tonight with respect to the
confidence that we have in the government when we stand in our
place to vote. I believe that, in and of itself, it is an
important message which should be sent and received by the
government.
Turning back specifically to the motion before the House, I do
not profess to stand to speak for every member of the Progressive
Conservative caucus when I say that this is a motion of
importance which needs to be flushed out. It is not the priority
of the government at this time, nor should it be. This motion is
an attempt, I believe, to somehow give Canadians the sense that a
crisis exists and that is simply not the case.
I believe that we should be having consultations. I am sure the
mover of this motion has heard from his constituents. I know
that in my constituency of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough there
are many who have very strong and very reasonable attachments to
the institution of marriage. That is fine. That is the way it
should be. I do not believe that the institution of marriage is
under attack or is in jeopardy, as this motion might suggest.
There are two very separate and distinct issues. I believe the
hon. member would acknowledge that the issue of financial
security, the issue of same sex benefits accruing to partners, is
quite separate and apart. I do not believe the suggestion that
one leads necessarily to the other. The courts themselves have
given very clear rulings. The legislatures throughout the
country, provincially and at the federal level, have in some
cases led and in some cases followed. However, I do not believe
that in this forum, in this debate today, we are going to find
the magical answers that will preserve or fortify the institution
of marriage. That is not going to be accomplished.
Again, I do not believe that the institution of marriage is in
jeopardy. I believe that it is going to remain a very strong and
important institution. When we talk of family and family
definitions we find that traditional views of family have changed
and they will continue to change and evolve. That is not to say
that they will change necessarily for the worse, where there will
be a clear reversal of what we have traditionally viewed as
family. The importance of fortifying values in this country is
recognizing what is safe, what is healthy and what is going to
create a better citizenry.
I am afraid that this debate will not further that, at least not
to the desired end. When we have an opportunity to vote this
evening, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting
individually.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find that the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is not too sure where he stands.
On the one hand he is suggesting that members of the Reform Party
are trying to create panic or are attacking. He even used the
word “misrepresentation”. The member suggests that we have
ulterior motives, that this is a divisive issue. Yet on the
other hand he said that this is a motion of importance.
The member cannot have it both ways. He is talking about jobs
and health care. Those are issues which we talk about every day.
No one is suggesting that they are not important issues.
The member has to decide which way it is. I know that he and I
both agree on the definition of marriage, without question. The
member said that this motion will not fortify the institution of
marriage. Is the member telling us that this House of Commons
has no influence on our courts? We are both members of the bar.
We know that judges look to the House of Commons, to the comments
which were made and how we voted. Will this not send a message
to the courts telling them exactly where the Parliament of Canada
stands?
Which way is it? Is it an issue of importance or does the
member not believe it is? Nobody in this party is suggesting a
panic attack. Those are words coming out of the hon. member's
mouth, not from the Reform Party of Canada.
1200
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of much
consternation, even within the member's party. I fully
acknowledge that decisions made in the House of Commons and in
parliament generally will affect the current law. They will
change the current law in most instances.
The definition of marriage and all the implications that flow
from marriage, be it a legal definition, a moral definition or a
person's own personal decision, will not be decided ultimately
here. I suggest there are constantly changing definitions and
constantly changing views of what is and what is not traditional
in the country.
It is fine for the hon. member to suggest that we should clearly
state that this is black and this is white, but that is not the
case in an issue such as this one. Try as we might to cram
things into small packages and to paint people into a corner, I
do not believe we will further the debate by taking that stance,
which is classic of the Reform Party.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
commend the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on
his very cohesive and reasonable remarks regarding the issue at
hand.
I happen to agree with him. I believe the motion has been
brought forth to be divisive, to create friction and to create a
feeling that anyone who opposes the motion is opposed to
heterosexual relationships, is un-Christian and all other things
that will stir up the feelings of Canadians.
I have my own personal feelings about the terms of marriage.
Just as my colleague from Sydney—Victoria stated, it is a
spiritual relationship as well. It does not tie into having
children or ensuring a sexual relationship. There is more to
marriage than that, but I believe very strongly that the issue is
before the House just to create friction which does not
necessarily have to be there at a time when there are many things
of great importance to Canadians.
It is not that the issue is not important, not that marriage is
not important and not that recognizing the institution of
marriage is not important. It is. To suggest that anybody who
would oppose the motion is anti-marriage, anti-heterosexual and
pro-gay lesbian as compared to being in favour of heterosexuals
is just crazy.
It is despicable that we have a party sitting in the Parliament
of Canada which pushes that kind of let us get on gays and
lesbians attitude. Quite frankly that is what the Reform Party
does when it brings forward these types of issues ahead of very
important issues that should be before the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her comments. I tend to agree that hot button politics are
not needed at this time in the country. Hopefully we will enter
a perhaps more stable period on the political landscape. The
last thing we need to do is to try to find open wounds and pick
at them. That is not productive.
Because of our charter and because of the way our history has
evolved, individuals in the country have been left with many
rights and freedoms, but they are often collective rights and
silent majority rights that are not always heard.
It is never difficult to find issues that inflame passions. What
is difficult is trying to find a very tolerant and non-intrusive
path to take that will be respective of the collective rights and
respective of individual rights. That is what we should be
striving to do.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is an honour to rise on this very important issue. After
listening to the last few speakers, I want to read something:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
1205
I do not know how much clearer we can get than that. We talk
about hot button politics. With some of the comments being made
by the other parties in the House, I would be ashamed to be
associated with those parties.
We are here to talk about one issue and only one issue. That is
the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. I lay
awake last night for a long time thinking about this issue. I
truly want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for
bringing forward the motion. He has been a very strong person in
support of this message and has had the courage to bring this
very important issue before parliament.
Often in the House we get caught up, and rightly so, in raising
our standard of living, taxes, health care and the war in Kosovo.
We talk about those subjects hour in and hour out and sometimes
it is my belief that we lose focus on the bigger, very important
issues. This is one of them.
I have been in the courts as a member of the bar. Judges are
always shaping the law of the land. The law of the land has been
by no means static. It is very dynamic. It changes over time.
When judges make their rulings it is very important to them that
they look at where the legislatures and the parliament of the
country stand on various issues.
Quite often lawyers presenting cases will refer to
Hansard. We have seen in recent court decisions where the
courts interpret a variety of issues. In British Columbia this
year a judge ruled that possession of child pornography is not a
crime in Canada. Of course the country was immediately outraged.
This is a case where parliament has an opportunity to send a
very clear message, and it is painfully simple, on where the
Parliament of Canada stands on the definition of marriage.
Parliament is the supreme lawmaker of Canada. We know the
definition of marriage in the books right now and we have an
opportunity to reaffirm that, which I think is very important.
Many members have suggested that there is a much deeper meaning
to what we are trying to do. I want to talk about that deeper
meaning. I want to go deep inside this definition and this
motion to what we are trying to do.
After spending hours thinking about this and looking at it from
all angles, the deepest meaning I can come up with is that we are
reaffirming the definition of marriage between one man and one
woman. Nothing else. That is it. It is painfully simple. It
cannot be confused with any other issues.
I have sat in parliament for the past few years. I appreciate
that somebody would bring forward this motion because it is what
really matters to Canadians. Actually I am offended when I hear
members of other parties trying to minimize its importance. They
have asked what the Reform Party is doing. They have said that
this law is on the books and have asked why it is wasting time
and why it has come forward with this meaningless motion.
Some 85 members of the House of Commons, or almost one-third,
have tabled petitions on the definition of marriage containing
hundreds of thousands of signatures. I cannot recall another
issue in which so many Canadian people have believed so strongly
that they wanted to send a message and table that many petitions.
I have seen members table petitions that are inches high.
1210
I am truly offended by members who suggest that this is not an
important issue to Canadians; that it does not deserve time in
parliament; that it does not deserve members of the House taking
a stand and sending an unequivocal, clear message to all of
Canada, to all the courts and to all members of the bar that this
is where the House of Commons stands on this issue. There is
nothing deeper than that.
We have heard the Minister of Justice say that she will support
it, but to suggest that this is not an important issue is to have
missed the mark. I emphasize the number of signatures. How much
plainer and simpler can we get than this definition? There are
no other issues. There is no hidden agenda, absolutely nothing.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Your nose is growing.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I heard a member on the other
side say my nose is growing. It is ridiculous to even suggest
that.
There is one agenda. I say that sincerely, with all my heart.
In all my discussions with my colleagues in the Reform Party
behind closed doors in our caucus, the one topic that has come up
is the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. That is
it and nothing else.
If the members cannot accept that, if they cannot accept the
importance of that and what it means to Canadians, I believe they
have missed something. It is important. As a member of the bar,
as a lawyer, I think it is truly important that the House of
Commons sends very clear messages to all courts. They are
looking for that. Often we see our courts struggle with
decisions because parliamentarians have not had the courage to
make a statement; they do not want to make a statement. The
courts say this is an issue on which parliament should rule.
This is an opportunity for us. I anticipate that virtually
every member of the House will support the motion for the right
reasons. It states just what it does. It is a truly important
motion, one that I am proud to speak on, one I am proud to
represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands on, that the
Parliament of Canada believes that the institution of marriage
should be preserved, that it should be between one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others. We should be prepared to
make that statement without minimizing it, without saying that it
is not important or without saying we should not be talking about
it.
I truly believe it is an important issue. It is worthy of the
time of the House to push it to a vote to make sure that all
officers of the courts and all the judges in the country know
exactly where we stand on the issue.
It is high time that we start sending messages to the courts on
many other issues such as child pornography and others that we
often do not deal with. It is time that we take a stand so that
the courts understand and make the definition so painfully simple
that nobody can misinterpret it.
In conclusion, I will read the motion one more time so that
everyone remembers what we are talking about, because some people
have not been able to read it:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
This is what the debate is about and nothing else. Hopefully
members have got it now.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
despite the protestations of the member it is very clear to all
in the House, and indeed to all Canadians, that the issues are
certainly much broader than the definition of marriage and what
constitutes marriage.
1215
The Minister of Justice spoke in the House earlier and confirmed
that the motion as stated with the amendment that it is within
the jurisdiction of the federal parliament is in fact the law of
Canada. The member is quite right. The government will support
the motion on the basis that the government is defending the laws
of Canada.
The member will also well know of the supreme court decisions.
In the Egan decision there was the concept of permitted
discrimination with regard to survivor benefits. In the
Rosenberg decision and in M. v H. the Supreme Court of Canada
raised a number of issues. In fact it has painted parliament
into a corner to act and in the absence of acting the courts will
make those decisions.
It is one of the reasons the discussions are going on now about
whether or not there should be an omnibus bill to deal with all
of the items pursuant to those court decisions, rather than
approach them as we did with Bill C-78. Despite the protestations
of the member it is very clear that there is a much broader issue
on the table.
My question for the member has to do with the concept of
discrimination. If the Government of Canada, and I believe it
will, supports the definition in the existing laws and as
repeated in the motion, does the hon. member believe that
constitutes discrimination in favour of heterosexual couples or
is it discrimination against those who do not fit that
definition?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of
Justice introduced an amendment. It is unfortunate that she does
not understand the standing orders of parliament. There is a
standing order that says that all motions before this House can
only be for the purview or the jurisdiction of the Parliament of
Canada. That goes without saying. That is why it was not in our
original motion. In the House we can only debate anything within
the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. That is an
automatic and a given. It did not need to be stated.
With regard to the hon. member's comments on discrimination,
there is no discrimination. We are only reaffirming the
definition of marriage. Members can talk about all of the other
issues. I will state on the record that I know and I have worked
with many people who are homosexual. I have no problem with
that. That is not the issue. It is not an issue about sexuality.
This is an issue strictly about the definition of marriage. I
personally do not discriminate against any of those people. I am
quite happy to state that on the record.
That is where the members of the House want to take this
discussion which is very unfortunate, as opposed to talking about
what it really and truly is and that is reaffirming that the
definition of marriage is between one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others. We need to send that message out in
light of recent court decisions and court interpretations. They
are not getting a clear direction from parliament and it is high
time they did. We do it on many other issues so that the courts
know exactly where the Parliament of Canada stands. The Canadian
people have elected us to make those statements in the House.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want some feedback from the hon. member on the issue that was
raised by the Conservative Party member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. He seemed to be making the
case that this was not an issue that needed much attention, that
perhaps we were misusing a supply day.
I have noticed that the Conservative member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has been a regular presenter of
petitions on this very same subject, along with 84 other members
of the House. There have been hundreds and hundreds of
petitions, thousands and thousands of names of petitioners
calling for the definition of marriage to be defended by the
House.
I have also noticed a number of headlines recently across the
country pertaining to recent court decisions about this. I too
think it is troubling that in the House of Commons we are having
to debate this issue which seems to be a no brainer for most
Canadians. I ask my hon. colleague what he thinks about that.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious. There
are five official parties in the House. Members of every single
have presented petitions on this issue. Almost a third of the
members of the House have presented petitions with hundreds of
thousands of signatures. The member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough less than one year ago, last
June, presented a petition in the House regarding this
definition.
To suggest that it is not an important issue is an insult to
every single person, every single Canadian who signed those
petitions and all other Canadians who believe in this issue.
1220
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to address this issue today. I want to commend the
member for Calgary Centre for leading the debate on this issue
for the Reform Party and also the member for Saanich—Gulf
Islands for an excellent speech. I want to pick up where he left
off and say that this is not about hot button politics. We heard
that from the member for Churchill and seconded in a way by the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. That is ridiculous.
Every day Canadians contact their members of parliament about
this issue.
Millions of Canadians currently live in the institution of
marriage. We all come from the union of a man and a woman at
some point. This is not something that is foreign to people.
This is something that is part of everyday life. We are simply
taking the time to address an extraordinarily important issue in
the Parliament of Canada where it should be addressed, not
necessarily only exclusively in courtrooms or in public debate in
the newspapers or in human rights commissions. This should be
debated in what is supposed to be of all places the most
democratic chamber in the country, in the House of Commons. That
is exactly what we are taking the opportunity to do today.
I commend my colleague from Calgary Centre for really pushing
this issue. I think it is extraordinarily important. I want to
answer some of the objections I have heard today from various
members.
We heard the justice minister suggest that somehow this is a
frivolous debate, that it is trivial. I point out that we have
had 84 petitions delivered in this parliament on this issue
alone. Thousands and thousands of Canadians have signalled to
this parliament that they are very concerned about this issue and
they want it addressed.
Canadians want parliament to state unequivocally that it
believes the definition of marriage, the traditional definition,
should be maintained and that we should affirm it. We should
send a strong message to the courts that we believe in this
traditional definition of marriage. It is a definition that has
been passed down over the ages, a definition that I suppose goes
back to the time before there were legislatures, before there
were courts, back into the mists of prehistory. People around
the world settled on this relationship, the union of one man and
one woman as a privileged relationship. We need to affirm it.
That is what we are doing today.
We ask our colleagues across the way to not be cowed by people
who suggest that this is somehow hot button politics. This is an
important issue. It should be dealt with in the Parliament of
Canada.
I reject what the Minister of Justice was saying. I think the
Minister of Justice too often hides behind the robes of the
supreme court and behind the robes of provincial courts. I think
it is time that she showed leadership and we are giving her a
chance to do that today.
I simply want to point out that the courts are very
unpredictable. Many court decisions have overturned what we
thought was the common law, the common wisdom of the ages. My
colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out that recently a
court in B.C. threw out the law against child pornography in
Canada. That is alarming to me and to many other Canadians.
When all kinds of debates are going on in the courts today with
respect to other institutions which we thought were protected in
the common law, institutions like the traditional definition of
what constitutes a spouse in common law relationships, Canadians
become alarmed. They start to say that they are concerned that
somehow this is going to end up with the courts determining that
marriage is something else other than what it has always been
defined to be. That concerns them and it concerns me as somebody
who represents those people. That is why we are speaking out on
this issue today.
1225
How many times have we debated things in this place that have
been absolutely inane? I would argue many times. I remember the
lead-up to the referendum in 1995. Over that whole period we
never did debate the issue of national unity. In that whole time
there was never a debate on that, but we debated whether or not
Canada should have a national horse. That was worthy of debate
in this place for some reason.
Here we are talking about an institution that is one of the
foundations of civil society and somehow people are suggesting
that it is not really that important, “Why do we want to mention
that? Some people will feel badly about that”. I say that is
too bad. That is the job of parliamentarians, to deal with these
issues even if they are controversial so that they are not
determined or settled by somebody else. We are elected to do
that job. We are paid well to do it. Let us do it. That is
what we are saying today.
I want to address some of the comments that came from members of
the NDP. The member for Vancouver East suggested that marriage
as traditionally defined discriminates against same sex couples.
I have news for the member for Vancouver East. Does she realize
that homosexual couples by the very definition of what that means
discriminate against heterosexuals? Maybe by definition but the
definition itself tells us about the very essence of what it is
we are talking about. It is not discrimination. It is simply a
definition that tells us what constitutes a marriage.
Gay couples can have their own relationships. They can call
them what they will. There are other relationships. Friendships
are called friendships. They are not the same thing. That does
not mean it is discrimination. It means that they are all
different and they describe different circumstances. That is all
it means. It has nothing to do with discrimination. I reject
that as another red herring. It is an obvious attempt to take us
down a whole other path and get us embroiled in this whole debate
about what constitutes discrimination.
I must address some of the comments by the member for
Burnaby—Douglas which I say are laughable. They were ridiculous
comments. My friend from Calgary Centre pointed out that in a
same sex relationship one of the genders is missing. What did
the member for Burnaby—Douglas say? He said that was an
appalling attack. He went on and on and tried to raise the
temperature in here. He somehow suggested this was
discrimination. It is a fact. If it is a same sex relationship,
one of the sexes is missing. It is pretty clear. It is by
definition the case. It is not discrimination. It is a fact.
Hello over there.
I say to the member for Burnaby—Douglas that it is time to quit
playing this game of hot button politics, to use the rhetoric
coming from the other side, and to address the issue. The issue
is whether or not parliament wants to affirm the traditional
definition of marriage.
There was also an objection from our friend from
Sydney—Victoria who spoke rather temperately on this issue. I
applaud him for his remarks. He said that this is an issue of
provincial jurisdiction, that there is a lot of overlap and that
really the federal government does not have as big a role to play
as we might suggest.
I say right off the top that no party, with the possible
exception of the Bloc, supports the upholding of provincial
jurisdiction more than this party does, but it is pretty clear in
the constitution that the federal government does have a very
important role to play when it comes to the issue of marriage.
That role is to determine who has the capacity to marry. That is
determined by the federal government.
We have to weigh in on this. We cannot wait for the provinces
and certainly not for the courts to decide on it. We have a
constitutional obligation to be involved in this and to send a
message to the courts. The courts have often asked that
parliament send a clear message. That is precisely what we are
proposing to do today. That is what I say to my friend from
Sydney—Victoria.
1230
I will wrap up with a comment to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who said that this is an issue of
hot button politics. He presented a petition in this place a
year ago saying that we must uphold the traditional definition of
marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others. He spoke on behalf of his constituents at that
point. I would argue that he did a very important thing when he
did that. I trust he thinks he did something important as well.
If he is going to be consistent, then he has to admit and concur
in the debate today because this is an important issue to all
Canadians.
I encourage my friends across the way to vote in favour of the
motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad the member encourages the government to support the
motion. The Minister of Justice, who spoke earlier today,
announced that the government will support the motion because it
reaffirms the existing laws of Canada.
The member spoke strongly about making the point that the debate
today was not trivial, and I concur. The fact is that laws of
Canada have been changed pursuant to supreme court decisions. If
parliament does not reaffirm its position on fundamental tenets,
then it is clear that the courts will always have that
opportunity. We have to keep reminding the courts of the
principles which the supreme parliament holds.
It is often said in some advertising that membership has its
privileges and its rights. In marriage there are certain rights
extended in our Income Tax Act, in our pension programs, et
cetera. In fact, after reading the press, it appears that the
only privilege that same sex partners do not have that married
couples have is property rights under family law. Therefore, if
a same sex couple enters into a contract with regard to property
rights, the rights and privileges of membership are all there in
hand.
All of a sudden it appears to me that marriage has rights and
privileges, but can we turn that around? If I have all the
rights and privileges, or can effectively achieve all those
rights and privileges, then why is it that I cannot be called
marriage? This is the dilemma that the House has to deal with. It
appears that the House and parliament does discriminate, but it
discriminates in favour. It is affirmative discrimination of the
family and of heterosexual couples. I want the member's
comments.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, of course it is true that
there is an exclusivity about marriage as we traditionally define
it, which means that all other relationships are outside of that
institution. I do not believe that constitutes discrimination,
at least not in the most negative sense that the opponents of
this point of view would use.
I think no matter what we do on this issue, it has to come
before this place. It is ridiculous to see these decisions being
made so often today by the courts. Ultimately, the courts cannot
establish the mores of the country. That has to come from the
people. We, as their representatives, have to give voice to
that. Those decisions should be made here in a free and open
debate.
My friend mentioned that the government will support the motion.
If my friend is an independent parliamentarian, I am surprised to
hear him say that the government will decide that. I would
expect that individual MPs will make these decisions for
themselves. That is typically what happens in a free parliament.
While I appreciate that this is probably what will happen, I
simply want to point out that in a sense he is saying that no
matter what the minister said, he would be going along with it. I
hope that is not the case.
1235
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest and I thought the member for
Medicine Hat made a very well informed presentation. The member
spoke about the affirmation of marriage and I really agree with
that.
There was a couple in my riding who had their 60th wedding
anniversary last year, Harold and Ruby Reiswig. They renewed
their vows in a reaffirmation about the important institution of
marriage. It sent a very strong message to their friends and
family about the importance of that.
The phones in my constituency are ringing again today supporting
this resolution and—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That seems like a
good spot to interrupt. The member for Medicine Hat has 30
seconds to respond.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my
colleague from the Peace River country. I know he is a real
champion on these sorts of issues.
I simply want to say that this is a chance for the Parliament of
Canada to reaffirm its vow to this traditional definition of what
constitutes a marriage. I encourage members on all sides to do
exactly that today.
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to address the question submitted to us by
the official opposition, namely the conditions for a marriage to
be valid.
It seems that our friends over there are particularly concerned
that nothing be done to change the existing law, particularly
the rule that marriage may be contracted solely by two persons
of the opposite sex.
Today I would like to address this question within the very
specific context of our government's initiative, which dates
back several years now, aimed at making federal legislation and
regulations fully compatible with the civil law of the province
of Quebec, the province in which I was elected. The government
considered, and continues to believe, that it is important to
take the necessary steps to ensure that this valuable Canadian
aspect of bijuralism is reflected in fact.
What is bijuralism? It is the term that has been used for some
time to describe a situation that has existed in Canada since
the passage of the Quebec Act of 1774, namely the co-existence
within one territory, Canada, of two contemporary legal
traditions, the British-inspired common law, and the
Roman-inspired civil law.
Since 1994, the year in which the new Quebec Civil Code, adopted
in 1991, came into effect, during the reign of Quebec Minister
of Justice Gil Rémillard, the Minister of Justice for Canada
carried out numerous preliminary studies on thirty or so complex
issues, with a view to best ensuring compatibility between
federal laws and the new Civil Code. It is important to note
that this reform affected more than 80% of the rules in the
Civil Code of Lower Canada, which had been in effect up until
then, and dated back to 1866.
The federal government then proceeded to hire experienced legal
experts as well as engaging the services of a number of
professors of law and other experts. These were consulted then,
and will be again now, on the numerous questions raised by such
an undertaking.
In order to set the stage, let us say that of the 700 laws in
the body of federal statutes, over 300 will have to be amended
in the coming years to ensure compliance with the distinctive
nature of Quebec's civil law, in both letter and spirit, of all
the laws passed by this House.
One of the most difficult questions the civil code section of
the federal Department of Justice had to examine involves
pre-confederation provisions, that is, those passed by the
legislature of United Canada prior to Confederation. Although
this is only one of the 30 studies released by the federal
department in relation to its work, it is interesting to note
that it concerns much more legally complex subjects, which have
up to now been essentially not tackled.
1240
While the Constitution Act, 1867, gives parliament the
legislative authority over marriage conditions, the government
had to give some thought to the impact of repealing some 300
sections of the civil code of Lower Canada dating from 1866 in a
whole range of areas, including the one that we are concerned
with today and to the way to ensure the necessary legal
continuity.
Another basic principle of the long job undertaken by the civil
code section of the Department of Justice is to not change
existing law except to the extent and only when harmonization
with civil law requires it.
Canada's legal minds have therefore had to analyse the question
of repealing some dozen sections of the civil code of Lower
Canada on marriage in order to decide whether they should be
re-enacted and if so, how.
[English]
The institution of marriage is historically, as I said earlier
in my short history lesson, culturally and by definition a
heterosexual institution. In Quebec, a fundamental condition of
a valid marriage has always been that the two people involved are
of the opposite sex. That condition is inherent in the very
institution of marriage.
[Translation]
In its 1994 Civil Code, the Quebec legislature restated the rule
whereby only a man and a woman may enter into marriage. This
rule can be found in article 365 of the Civil Code of Quebec.
[English]
This is also reflective of the state of the law in all other
Canadian jurisdictions. This is also part of the reason why we
moved an amendment this morning to make the difference between
the federal and provincial jurisdictions.
[Translation]
The opinions of our experts led us to propose a number of
substitute clauses in Bill C-50, four of which have to do with
marriage. These clauses concern age, consent of the partners,
and dissolution of marriage, and ensure that enforcement of
these provisions is limited to Quebec.
It should be noted that this work has involved broad
consultations with associations of jurists in Quebec, i.e. the
Quebec bar, the Chambre des notaires, and the Quebec chapter of
the Canadian Bar Association, as well as the Quebec justice
department. These learned bodies have all had an opportunity to
examine the provisions of Bill C-50, including those having to do
with marriage.
In fact, representations were made to us by the Quebec justice
department, urging us to use the wording of article 365 of the
Civil Code of Quebec in clause 4 of the bill, so that
harmonization of the applicable rules would be as consistent as
possible.
We can therefore see that all necessary precautions have been
taken by government legal experts to ensure that the rule of
law, which is well established in our country with respect to
what constitutes a spouse, is not inadvertently changed.
[English]
The government has taken all the necessary steps in Bill C-50 to
ensure that the current definition of marriage in our society
would be implemented in a uniform manner across the country.
I would like to respond to comments made by opposition members.
If the government has never expressed any intention to change the
legal definition of marriage, then what is the point of the
Reform Party's motion? That is really the question today.
As a parliamentary secretary, I have often been privy to matters
in the House dealing with justice issues. I see the Reform Party
as unfortunately attempting to continue to either spread fear or
to pit, which is more dangerous, Canadians against each other. I
see it as a divisiveness in terms of pitting same sex partners
against heterosexual partners or pitting Canadians of other
origins against other Canadians. This constant attempt to divide
society has to be one of the most despicable things that I have
heard in the House and, in my opinion, it continues with the
motion. It constantly tries to make and score political points
by confusing the issue.
1245
There is no issue here. The Minister of Justice was clear this
morning that the government has no intention of changing the
definition of marriage. It has never said that it would and she
put that on the record this morning.
I ask Canadians who are listening to this debate to ask the
question of themselves: Why was the motion brought forward in
the House?
I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to about 95% of not a bad presentation and then the last
5% got a little crazy, I think.
I have received over 100 phone calls in my constituency office
in the last two days in support of this motion and in support of
what we are doing today.
People are concerned about this because of the confusion that
has been created by recent rulings. It is not clear to people
where parliament stands on this issue and for the member to say
it is irresponsible for us to bring the issue to this place is
not acceptable.
An hon. member: It's cheap politics.
Mr. Rick Casson: That's wrong.
The fact is that Canadian people are concerned. There is no
other issue on which I have received this many phone calls from
people in my riding.
It is important to Canadians that this be discussed and that
parliament reaffirm that the definition of marriage as it exists
is the one we will stand by.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I am also a member of
parliament and I also receive phone calls. A lot of time those
phone calls are made because Canadians are misinformed. I would
like to say that they are misinformed by the fact that these
types of motions are brought forward. They lead to confusion.
Yes, people want to know where the government stands. I am not
debating the fact that we should not have a definition of
marriage. As the minister said, there is a definition of
marriage.
As parliamentary secretary I have been privy to a lot of
discussions in the House about the role of the judiciary, the
role of the rule of law in the country, something which I believe
Her Majesty's Official Opposition has never respected.
The hon. member made a comment earlier about the minister hiding
behind robes. That is a totally irresponsible comment, that the
Minister of Justice should not respect a decision made by the
highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.
An hon. member: The rule of law.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: The rule of law has never been
respected, unfortunately, and every time we want to change a
decision made by the highest court we turn to parliament. This
is not a police state where the government runs the courts; this
is quite the opposite. We respect the courts. That is what the
government has shown. That has not been the intent of Her
Majesty's Official Opposition.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the member's position. I do not agree with it, but I
appreciate it.
Really what we are trying to do, and I want to help her
understand it, is assist the government in showing some
leadership on this issue.
The courts themselves have asked for direction from this House
on these issues. I am referring to a case in Ontario in which a
judge said “The fact that there was a dissenting opinion in this
case”, which was a case having to do with marriage, “indicates
that there is indeed confusion about whether marriage could be
between people who are not of the opposite sex. Again, there is
a need for parliament to show leadership and give guidance on the
issue”. Those were the words of the judge. The courts are
looking to the House to give direction on these issues.
Did the Liberal government intend for spouse to be redefined as
the courts have done? We do not know. Is it going to wait for
the courts to redefine marriage or will it step up to the
leadership role that people expect of it and which the courts are
calling for?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody
has said in the House that we want to stifle debate.
There has been a pattern created, whenever a decision has been
by the highest court of the land, that Her Majesty's Official
Opposition chooses, when it dislikes that decision, to ask that
parliament act.
I do not believe that is the role of parliament. The role of
parliament is to ensure that we have the best legal minds in the
country to interpret the type of legislation that is adopted by
the House.
I will repeat what the minister said this morning. There was
never any intention by the government to redefine marriage.
1250
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my feeling that the highest court of the land is the
Parliament of Canada. I wonder if the hon. member would disagree
or agree with that.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, the highest court of
the land, if we are talking about the Supreme Court of Canada, is
a place that we should all respect. I dare to say that often in
this parliament I have not heard respect for the best legal minds
that we have in the Supreme Court of Canada given by Her
Majesty's Official Opposition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning when I watched the news a representative of a
particular group said “It is sad that parliament will be
debating the continued discrimination against a certain group of
people”.
I came into the lobby this morning and a staff member walked in.
It was quite quiet in the lobby. The staff member made a comment
to the effect that “The motion today is about marriage. Boy is
that boring and inconsequential”. It is neither boring nor
trivial. In fact it is a very important motion. It comes down
to some fundamentals.
I often hear in this place talk about the broader issue, which
no one wants to mention, about the proverbial line in the sand.
The line in the sand, apparently, for many has to do with
marriage. That is the line in the sand.
Policy by its very nature is discriminatory. It has to be
discriminatory. Otherwise we would not need laws to identify who
is included and who is out, who gets benefits and who does not.
Policy by its very definition, by its very nature, is
discriminatory.
To say that is to raise the issue of the context of
discrimination. Earlier I spoke about the definition of
discrimination. It is clear that if we look to many sources we
will see that discrimination has negative connotations,
prejudice, bias, victimization and so on. It also has the
connotations of distinguishing between groups or favouring or
identifying distinctive characteristics. There are other
applications. In our laws we have many forms of discrimination
which discriminate in favour.
I will highlight a couple of examples. On the income tax return
for Canada there is a line for old age security. We get it
because we are 65. It is age discrimination. It is in the
charter of rights that we cannot discriminate on the basis of
age, but we do discriminate because if a person is 65 they
receive old age security. It is discrimination in favour of
seniors.
Why is someone not here saying that we all have to be equal?
Should we not all be equal?
What about disability benefits? There is discrimination in
favour of those who are disabled.
There are a number of provisions for things such as investment
income. A couple can pool their income. One can invest all of
theirs and declare all the income. A single person with a
partner cannot do that. There is discrimination on the basis of
recognized partnership.
Alimony is another example. Another is registered pension
plans, RRSPs. We can buy a spousal RRSP which can be rolled over
upon death. These are all discriminatory in favour of a
particular group.
If we look at child care expenses, we discriminate in favour of
those situations in which both persons in the union are working.
They receive a deduction, which is not available to those
families who have one spouse providing direct parental care. It
is discrimination, but it is discrimination in favour of
something.
On that point I look back at history. It was brought in
initially to take care of the situation of lone parents, because
of that unique situation where there was hardship. It was a
social benefit. It was not an employment expense. There is a
debate on that as well.
There is an age for the non-refundable tax credit. When a
person is 65 they receive it. There is the Canada pension plan,
the transferability of tuition fees and education amounts. I
could go on and on. That is simply from the Income Tax Act. We
could imagine how many examples there are in our system of
taxation and of benefits which are discriminatory by their
nature. They are discriminatory at the discretion of parliament,
reflecting the social values and the will of the Canadian people.
1255
We should not talk about discrimination solely in the context of
a negative. I think it is important for the House to stop using
the word discrimination and start talking about valuing. How do
we value things?
I have heard members of the NDP today, from Burnaby—Douglas,
Churchill and Vancouver East, all demand that we need equality
among people. The equality they are seeking is equality of
individuals. NDP members are asking for the equality of
individuals as represented by the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and our constitution. They want individuals to be the
lowest common denominator.
Everyone should be treated the same, but the issue is, if we are
going to treat everyone the same in regard to the context of this
debate, it will then lead to the question of how we treat
everyone with regard to all of our other tax laws and policies.
Should we not treat everyone the same? Should we not reduce
ourselves to the lowest common denominator? Should we not just
be a vanilla society? Should we not just say that relationships
do not exist in our laws? Why do we not just say that we are all
individuals? There is a very good reason. It is because we are
a society and a society, by definition, is more than a collection
of individuals. There is a synergy in a society. There are
certain things that happen.
Some will object to my doing this, but I want to note that the
Archbishop of Toronto, Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic, wrote a letter
concerning Bill C-78, which, as members know, has something to do
with this issue. He talked about the family. We have not talked
about the family yet and whether we put the family on a pedestal
because the family has an important role to play. I would throw
in that there is one definition of family that we all have in
common, which is a child with a biological mother and a
biological father. That is the family.
The Cardinal referred to the family. He said “They and their
children constitute the family—the original cell of social
life”. He quoted Pope John Paul II:
In their primary mission of communicating love to each other, of
being co-creators with God of human life, and of transmitting the
love of God to their children, parents must know that they are
fully supported by the Church and by society.
We are here representing the interests of that society, not a
collection of individuals. In fact we are also here very
delicately trying to defend the family, trying to defend that
fundamental basic unit of society without which we would cease to
exist.
There is a special role. It is the procreative role that a
couple has, a man and a woman. It is that role which we hold
very dear, which we put on a pedestal, of which we discriminate
in favour. It is why we have spousal benefits, spousal
transfers, survivor benefits and all kinds and manners of
benefits for the family.
I challenge anyone in this place to look at history, at the
debate on all of those items on which some would say there is
discrimination, to find one example of anybody who suggested that
the reason it was being done was to be detrimental to some other
group.
The debates underlying the laws of Canada are clear that
discrimination within our system is affirmative discrimination.
We discriminate to reflect values. If we did not do that then it
would be a vanilla society. It would be a society which has no
values, no vision for a millennium, nothing to pass on other than
we are all individuals.
The issue here also has to do with the courts. Some believe
that the courts have made law to the exclusion of parliament.
Some believe that the courts have gone too far, that the pendulum
has swung too far. Some are calling for parliament to stop the
pendulum and to revisit this issue. Are we going to
discriminate?
The very definition of marriage, to the exclusion of all others,
which has been part of British common law since 1866, is
discrimination: “to the exclusion of all others”. However, it
is affirmative discrimination on behalf of the Canadian people
who value and cherish and have great pride and joy in the
Canadian family.
1300
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
to comment on the lowest common denominator. I am sad to say the
member for Mississauga South sort of reached the lowest common
denominator by suggesting that the only recognition of family in
Canada is of a biological father, a biological mother and a
child. That certainly might be his narrow minded vision of a
family, but I would suggest a great many families out there are
not biological children or biological parents.
Canadians have recognized over the years that the definition of
family needs to go beyond biological mother and father. Part of
the reason for that is that families of biological mothers,
fathers and children have not always been perfect. The
relationships among those families have not been perfect. Because
of the imperfections, families do not stay together as biological
mothers, fathers and children. Changes have to be made. The
numbers were great enough that there was an understanding among
Canadians that family could not just be considered in that way.
I take this opportunity to say once again that the term marriage
should be all that it is, but it is quite clear to me that the
Reform Party and the member for Mississauga South have an
underlying agenda. It is not just the term marriage. They are
talking about Canadians rehashing the whole issue of whether or
not same sex relationships should have any benefits and any
recognition. That should not be the case.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member
misheard me. I did not say the exclusive and only definition of
family is child with biological mother and biological father. If
the member would check the blues, she would see that I said that
there is one definition which we all have in common. I bring
that to the attention of the member. It is different.
With regard to another agenda, I raised the points not to stir
up the pot, as it were, but rather to suggest that the definition
of marriage is discriminatory in favour of heterosexual couples.
It is affirmative discrimination. Some are suggesting that
affirmative discrimination is okay. Others are suggesting that
discrimination against same sex couples is negative and should be
thrown out. There is a debate pointer.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
like the member for Mississauga South, I attended the last
Liberal Party of Canada annual convention.
We heard earlier the Minister of Justice say that this was not
an issue, that it was redundant. I have the Liberal talking
points put together by some nameless hack which say that if the
government has never expressed any intention to change the legal
definition of marriage then what is the point of Reform's motion
and that clearly it is just part of a continuing attempt to fear
monger, et cetera.
I was at the last Liberal Party convention as was the member. I
remember a resolution being passed by the Liberal Party of Canada
which strongly urged the federal government to recognize same sex
marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages
in its distribution of benefits.
Could the hon. member comment on the remarks of the attorney
general that this is not a relevant point when her own party, the
party of which he is a member, voted to change the definition we
are seeking to uphold through the motion today?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member will know even
from his own party that the party membership passes resolutions,
many of which are in contradiction to each other. They do not
form government policy. They are there on an advisory or on a
discussion basis. They are not binding on the party, and the
member will know that.
I take the opportunity to point out that I think the debate
should take on a view or a focus which talks about what we value.
We have to talk about being for things and not against things.
In my speech I tried to identify that there are certain things
we value in society such as healthy stable families with children
who provide the future of society. Those things should be valued
to the exclusion of others simply because of the most special
role the family provides. I support them and I discriminate in
favour of the family.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must very respectfully disagree with my colleague and
his definition of family.
Frankly my husband and I are family whether we do or do not have
children living with us or whether we ever had children living
with us. His narrow definition is one I do not accept.
1305
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the same
answer I gave to the other member. I did not define the family
exclusively and that is it.
I said very clearly, and I will repeat it again, that there is
one definition of family that we all have in common. For
everyone on the face of the earth the common denominator is a
child with biological mother and biological father. That is not
speculation. That is not some wild idea. That is a fact.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to enter into the debate today on the issue of
marriage and its importance to society.
As we get into things such as definitions, the roles of
marriages and families and so on, we should withdraw a bit from
some of the debate and reflect upon the joyous state of marriage
which many people enjoy and covet in a free society.
Personally speaking, I just celebrated my 24th wedding
anniversary. I often say that the years I spent before I was
married were the only wasted years of my life. Since then it has
been pretty good. What we are debating today is:
That, in the opinion of the House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
The reason it is a delight to have the motion before us today is
that it affirms marriage. It does not say that it is against
anything. It does not say that we belittle other relationships,
but there is only one marriage. A marriage is the union of a man
and a woman as recognized by the state. It may be a church
wedding. It may be a common law wedding. It may be a justice of
the peace. The fact is that a marriage is a union of a man and a
woman, and a glorious union that is. Again we are affirming that
today.
We are asking parliament to step up to the voting line to say
where it stands on the issue. We have read a lot in the press
about different court decisions and about different positions in
response to petitions. We have heard comments from different
parties about their reluctance to agree and so on. Now is the
opportunity to step up, as we will do that later this evening, to
say whether we in favour of this, yes or no. It will be my
pleasure to step up to say this is the definition of marriage.
Someone earlier asked about the definition of family. Our party
has defined it but not loosely. It is pretty easy to define
family. Family is those people who are related by blood,
marriage or adoption.
Is a single mom with some kids a family? Yes, by blood. What
if she adopted a couple of kids? By all means. What about a
single father? Of course. Those are families, and we recognize
that. Our party recognizes that and affirms that they play an
important role in society. That is another great debate. Today
we are affirming that marriage is a union of one man and one
woman as recognized by the state. That is what this is about.
Why should we bother with this debate? I believe the courts and
society in general look to parliament to set the pace and the
agenda not only for legislation and human rights tribunals but
also for the courts. The courts often state that they are
looking to parliament and legislatures for guidance on issues
like definitions contained or not contained in legislation.
When I gave a speech about the supreme court in my home riding a
while ago, I mentioned that some people were exasperated, with
some justification, with how pervasive rulings had become and how
much they influenced society and parliament.
1310
While I agreed there was cause for concern, I said that the
greater concern was weak-kneed, yellow-bellied legislators who do
not have the courage to step up and say what needs to be said in
legislation. They should step up to the batter's box and tell
the supreme court not to worry about a definition in the
immigration law or in the spousal benefits law or in whatever law
it might be because we will give it to them. We are not afraid
of it because we had a good debate on it, took a vote on it, and
Canadians through their House of Commons decided and gave
direction to the courts.
When people get annoyed with the supreme court I ask them to
pause for a second. While they may be annoyed with the supreme
court, they are also annoyed with legislatures and legislators
that do not do their job in this place and in provincial
legislatures across the country. That is where we should expect
good, intelligent debate and where decisions should be made and
carried to the courts, not the other way around.
The next point is allowing Canadians to be heard on the subject.
I debated with the member for Burnaby—Douglas this morning on
Canada A.M.. He was proposing that God be removed from the
constitution. I took the opposing view and we had a debate back
and forth about whether or not it should happen. The only thing
we agreed on was the need to have and to allow good debate on a
controversial topic.
He may want to remove it. More power to him, if he can convince
somebody. Personally I think an overwhelming majority of
Canadians would agree with my position. Whatever, the place to
debate controversial subjects is not in the back rooms of a
courthouse. By all means bring it here for Canadians to discuss
in their House of Commons. We should not be afraid of any of
that.
At one time I had an experience with the unique position of
marriage as opposed to common law. It was at a funeral held for
a solider, a constituent of mine who was killed during a land
mine exercise in Bosnia. He married the lady of his dreams just
before he went there. They had a ceremony. He went over there
and he was killed in a land mine accident.
I remember his commanding officer saying to me that it was
fortunate the couple had married before he went away because now
they could help her. They could look after her. They could
extend the open arms of friendship, which any human being would
do for another human being, but because of the unique marriage
relationship it would not involve a two year waiting period or a
court case. There was a marriage certificate. I do not know
whether it was a civil or a religious ceremony. It did not
matter because the marriage ceremony brought with it a sanctity
recognized by this place about the important role of marriage in
that the survivor would receive survivor benefits from the
Canadian Armed Forces.
It was a very emotional ceremony during which the colonel
pointed out the unique role of marriage in society. We could
leave that funeral and say to one another that at least she would
be well looked after, at least by being married they had sent a
message to Canada and in return our Canadian parliament said that
it respected that and would help her in her time of loss in a
material way, a small way.
I am thrilled that we can talk about something as positive as
marriage today, that we can affirm it and the role of this place.
There are other legitimate relationships of all kinds, but today
we are talking about marriage and the need to preserve that
definition. I am glad the Minister of Justice has said she also
agrees with that.
Let us put aside other relationships and their importance for
another debate on another day, but on this day Canadian
parliamentarians will stand to be counted on the definition of
marriage and talk about the positive, important role of marriage
in society.
1315
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the member's excellent speech. In my point of
view, marriage is not just a contract between a man and a woman,
it is more than that.
I have been married for 29 years. When my wife and I entered
into our marriage, we made a commitment to each other that we
would share good and bad things for the rest of our lives. More
than that, to me as a Roman Catholic, marriage is a holy
sacrament.
I ask my hon. colleague, how has marriage expanded in his view,
not only as a contract, but from the spiritual side? How would
he look at it?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
question.
For the purposes of this debate I talked about the technical
definition of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman
as recognized by the state. In other words the state recognizes
that there can be a civil ceremony with a justice of the peace
and so on.
What the member is talking about of course is a church wedding,
a church marriage. People make a vow not only about the
recognition before the state, but they also make a vow based on
their faith in God and the scriptural perspective they bring to
it.
I agree with the member that many people, I would suggest most
people, when they enter into a marriage contract, do not think of
it in terms of what one or the other can get. They enter into it
in the traditional faith perspective of the two shall become one.
It is not just a case of having a prenuptial agreement and
splitting things up later if it does not go right. Most people
enter into it in a very serious and solemn way. It is a joyous
but a solemn occasion where they say “You and I are getting
together. We are not getting together to split things down the
middle; we are getting together so that we two shall become
one”.
I agree with the member that most people on their marriage day
make that commitment because they want it to last forever. I
agree that is why most people head into it. That is why the
tearing apart of a marriage when it does not work out is so
traumatic. It is said that when it comes to stress, it is next
to a death in the family. There is nothing more stressful than a
separation in a marriage.
That is why the things we can do here to promote and encourage
marriage and to help—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It was really
difficult for me to capture your eye but I had to interrupt.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
making some of his points, the hon. whip for the opposition used
a very moving story about a soldier who went off to Bosnia but
was married just prior to leaving. I understand the point of the
story to be that it made it easier for the widow to collect
benefits by virtue of the fact that they had gone through the
actual marriage ceremony.
I would like to ask him in the most serious of ways, what if
that soldier who went away and was killed was part of a long term
homosexual relationship, a long, stable, loving relationship?
Maybe they co-owned a home and had joint assets. Then the soldier
went away and had the terrible accident with the mine. Does the
hon. member think that the grieving spouse in that relationship
should have access to the same benefits as the spouse in the
member's story?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the member did get the
point of my original story. Because of the marriage contract, so
to speak, and the fact that a marriage has taken place, the state
has said that all the waiting periods and all the proving of
conjugality are set aside. They do not have to prove they are
sleeping together. They do not have to prove it is a long term
commitment.
They do not have to go through a two or three year waiting
period. They do not have to have children. The marriage ceremony
brings with it a certain legitimacy which happens the moment the
documents are signed. Not to belittle other relationships,
marriage brings with it legitimacy and carries it from that
moment forward.
1320
The member put forward a hypothetical case. The idea of long
term relationships and dependent relationships is an issue which
probably deserves another debate in the House. I encourage the
member and his party to bring it forward. Other members have
brought forward the idea that we should base our benefits on
dependency rather than on marriage.
I used the example because marriage brings with it something
special which has been recognized for eons. The moment the ink
is dry and the couple runs out of the church under a shower of
confetti, that moment is special. It is special not only in the
church, not only before the state, but it is special between the
two people. For the marriage definition, those two people are a
man and a woman.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is remarkable that we should even be debating this in the House
of Commons today but I take real delight in addressing the motion
that has been put forward and I gladly affirm it.
When one thinks of the glue that holds societies together, one
cannot help but think of the institution of marriage and the
family unit which is the fundamental building block of society.
The motion the Reform Party put forward today speaks to the
current legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of
one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. In putting
forward this motion the Reform Party is simply affirming or
echoing its longstanding policy that marriage is the union of a
man and a woman as recognized by the state.
Why are we debating such a topic? Why are we spending time
discussing something that would seem to be so self-evident? There
has been a chronology of events over the last number of months.
Some people believe that the institution of marriage is in
danger of being radically changed in law due to recent court
rulings. As we all know, a series of court decisions have been
made in which various kinds of benefits previously restricted to
heterosexual couples have now been extended to gay partners.
A year ago in the Rosenberg decision the Ontario Court of Appeal
changed the Income Tax Act to extend pension benefits to gay
partners. Just last month the supreme court declared in its M. v
H. ruling that gay partners are subject to the alimony provisions
of Ontario's Family Law Act. Some people believe that marriage
will be the next to fall and that gay marriages may be just on
the horizon or just around the corner. This does not need to be
the case and should not be the case in my view.
We are here today to affirm both in debate and by means of a
vote that there is no necessary connection between extending
benefits to gay partners and legalizing same sex marriage. Some
people will want to see a connection between them but there does
not have to be and there ought not to be.
Let me quote the justice minister on this point. In an April
24, 1998 letter she stated:
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.
That statement clearly distinguishes between the extension of
benefits, which is what the courts have been ruling on, and the
definition of marriage, which is what they have not been ruling
on. The conclusion drawn by the justice minister is that
homosexual individuals can be treated fairly without having to
alter the definition of marriage.
The Prime Minister of the land made the same point in a May 21,
1999 press release which responded to the M. v H. decision. He
said:
We believe that it is not necessary to redefine concepts like
marriage in order to ensure access to benefits and obligations
for people in committed relationships in a way that is fair to
all Canadians.
Clearly the government and the Reform Party are in agreement
that gay marriage is not a logical progression from recent court
rulings on questions of benefits. They are different issues that
belong in different categories.
I want to address the question of why it is that marriage is a
unique institution that deserves to be guarded and strengthened
in our nation. The institution of marriage has brought great
benefits to our society.
In the vast majority of marriages, children are brought into the
world providing our country with its future citizens, workers,
leaders, mothers and fathers, and so it goes.
1325
Marriages provide the most stable, enduring context for the
development of individuals during the formative years of
childhood and thereafter on through their teenage years. A mom
and a dad have an influence on a son or a daughter well on into
their adult life.
It has been proven statistically that families in which the
parents are married are the most stable families. That is a
documented fact. In this way marital relationships contribute to
the dignity, the stability, the peace and prosperity of the
family and of the greater society.
Why does a marriage bring these benefits, we ask. When a man
and a woman enter into the marriage relationship, it is almost
always for the express purpose of making a lifelong commitment
which will form the basis of family life and the environment in
which children will be reared.
I have had the privilege over a decade and a half in a previous
life of officiating at marriage ceremonies, as the one
solemnizing that marriage. It has been a awesome privilege to
watch the groom and the bride stare into each other's eyes as
their emotions well up. On those many occasions I found myself
being caught up in the significance of that very momentous
occasion when a man and a woman come together to commit their
lives together. I would say in all of those cases and in the
premarital counselling that preceded, although marriages do break
down, it was the intent of the two coming together that it be a
lifelong commitment to one another, a loving relationship in
richness and in poverty, in sickness and in health and so on as
the marriage vows go.
Even though regrettably marriages sometimes break down, the fact
that marriage relationships are much more stable than common law
relationships makes one thing very clear: very few people enter
into the marriage relationship flippantly. It has been my
experience and the experience of many others whom I have talked
to, colleagues and numerous other people, that most have
carefully thought about that commitment, some more than others.
They thought about the commitment they were making and they said
those vows sincerely and solemnly. They realized that they were
participating in something much larger than themselves, something
that most Canadians from various religious backgrounds believe is
designed by God.
My point here is simply that people are serious when they get
married. This seriousness and depth of commitment to the
marriage is what benefits the children who are born and raised in
that context in those stable families. That is of great benefit
to all of society.
Because of the way in which the institution of marriage benefits
society, we need to guard it, we need to protect it and we need
to promote it. The institution of marriage as a union of one man
and one woman must be preserved, protected and promoted in both
the private and the public realms. It would be foolish to
undermine the uniqueness of the marriage relationship. Any
society that does so risks losing the benefits that have come to
society from marriage and from the high regard in which it has
always been held.
Of course some people are not thinking about the health of the
larger society when they are willing to sacrifice the societal
benefits that come from marriage in order to engage in a form of
social experimentation. Such people may regard marriage as
little more than a form of self-expression, but marriage must
not, marriage cannot be reduced to that level. It is much more
than a form of self-expression. It is the glue, some would say
the crazy glue that holds society together today and lays the
groundwork for the society of tomorrow.
The institution of marriage is not something to be toyed with.
Were we to abandon the uniqueness of marriage, I am convinced
that we would pay a heavy price for such social experimentation.
We would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Down the
road, two decades from now or whatever number of years down the
road, we would be looking back and we would rue the day that the
slide began and that decisive moment of change occurred. We must
not go down that road and have to pick up the pieces later.
To tinker with the institution of marriage would send the wrong
message. First, it would send the wrong message to our young
people. Surveys have shown that young people are actually more
optimistic about relationships and starting a family some day
than even many of their parents were. This optimism is good. It
needs to be encouraged.
Second, were the institution of marriage to be changed, we would
be sending a wrong message to common law couples who have
children and are contemplating making a lifelong commitment to
each other in marriage, that formal commitment, that celebration
and that actual ceremony before the public.
1330
Obviously many couples who are married today were formally
living together in common law relationships and at some point
decided to commit themselves to each other in marriage, which is
something to be encouraged and welcomed. The children in such
relationships can only benefit and society in turn benefits.
The motion we have considered today is an important one. It
seeks to defend the current legal definition of marriage in
Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of
all others. In putting forth the motion, the Reform Party is
simply echoing its long-standing policy that marriage is the
union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state. It is
monogamous. It is one man and one woman for life.
Opposite sex, is defined as well.
We look forward to the vote tonight and to see the House affirm
that long-standing, age old, historic definition of marriage.
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the motion before us from the member for Calgary Centre is pretty
straightforward. It asks that the House reaffirm its commitment
to marriage with the legal definition of marriage as being the
union between one man and one woman. Quite frankly, I have
absolutely no hesitation in saying that I support this 100%. What
is regrettable is that the motion has taken on a life other than
what it should be.
The whole idea of survivor benefits and what we are doing in
other pieces of legislation needs a full and wholesome debate on
its own. That is the subject of another debate and I would not
want to see it confused.
I have great difficulty with pieces of legislation that deal
with conjugal relations because I do not think survivor benefits
should be based on one's sleeping habits or who one is sleeping
with. There are other ways to define who might be the recipient
of a survivor benefit. It in no way demeans other kinds of
relationships. What we are talking about here is the legal
definition of marriage.
I do not have a question so much as a comment. I do not think
it is inappropriate that we, in this House of Parliament, state
for one and all our reaffirmation that marriage is the union
between one man and one woman.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
affirmation of the member across the way. The whole intent and
point of the debate is to make it very clear to the public and
have it on the record that we are defending, affirming, strongly
avowing and supporting the institution of marriage and the
traditional view of it.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too have no problem supporting the motion, but I have
a question for the hon. member.
Many Canadians of the Muslim faith are allowed to marry more
than one woman. The motion defines marriage as being the union
between only one man and one woman. How would this affect a
person of the Muslim faith if he is married to more than one
woman? Would that be defined as a family by this motion or would
there be a different category for them?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring
to the attention of the member, as he is obviously aware, that
within Canada, this great Dominion of ours from sea to sea to
sea, monogamy between one man and one woman is the law. That is
the rule.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I also
want to acknowledge that I support the term of marriage as a
union of a single man and a single woman. However, I do think
other issues have been brought into this as well.
Can the hon. member tell me what he would perceive as the
relationship of same sex couples and whether or not they should
receive the same benefits that married couples receive? Should
that be the case, or is the issue that we want to affirm marriage
and make sure that same sex couples never have the same benefits
that married people have? Does he have another term that may be
used for the commitment that same sex couples show to each other?
1335
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of our
debate today, we are of course debating the marriage definition
itself.
The member raised a very valid question. Her party may put it
forward on a future day that it should not be based on sexual
involvement or a conjugal relationship, but we would also need to
know the cost. The public would then have to be engaged in the
debate to determine if that were in the greater societal
interest. There would also have to be a full debate the House of
Commons, and I would encourage that.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that when a man with more
than one wife applies for immigration status in Canada, he is
disqualified by this motion from being called a family. If a
Muslim family from the Middle East or anywhere else applies to
come to Canada with more than one wife, the hon. member is
basically asking them to drop the other wives at home, break up
the family and come back here.
The hon. member must address this issue before we vote on the
subject. It is a very important issue.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member
want to put forward a motion to the effect of affirming polygamy
in our country? I am not exactly sure of his intent. However,
as our law presently states, a marriage is between one man and
one woman. It has been long held in our Judeo-Christian setting.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
I think this is an important debate and I am pleased that the
hon. member has brought the issue to the House. The motion
reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the public
debate around the recent court decisions, in particular to talk
about those decisions and suggest some steps that we must next
take.
In my view, parliament has been silent too long on this issue
and has, by its neglect, deferred to others in areas of intense
controversy among Canadians. The leading decision in the field
is Egan and Nesbit, which was a challenge to the spousal
allowance provisions of the Old Age Security Act. In May 1995,
the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal of Egan and
Nesbit by a 5:4 margin.
The court, however, was unanimous in its view that sexual
orientation was an analogous ground and triggered section 15
protection. A 5:4 majority found that the spousal issue
discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and therefore
infringed section 15. However, a different 5:4 majority found
that the discrimination was justified under section 1 of the
charter. The conclusion appeared to be based, at least in part,
on the view that the court should be reluctant to interfere in
parliament's choice in respect of socioeconomic pieces of
legislation.
It is quite obvious therefore that this is a very divided court,
as is society. However, it had the wisdom to offer this advice
to parliament in May 1995 when the decision was rendered:
The issue of how the term spouse should be defined is a
fundamental social policy issue and parliament should decide it
and parliament should listen to and balance the competing social
issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological
issues that go into this definitional process. The court
shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and
the court should defer to parliament.
This is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement for interfering in
different areas of jurisdictional competence or, as some have
suggested, judicial activism. I would submit quite to the
contrary, the courts are quite prepared to defer to parliament.
The next leading case is Rosenberg, which the government chose
not to appeal. It basically showed that the court of appeal was
a little fed up with parliament. It had a case before it
concerning tax deferral and the advantages of a heterosexual
couple over a homosexual couple with respect to the Income Tax
Act.
The attorney general conceded that under the Income Tax Act
section 15 was in fact violated, but at a lower court ruling
this was a justifiable limitation and was found to be reasonable
under section 1. The court of appeal, in overturning that
decision, said that this discriminatory action could not be
justified as pressing and substantial. It also said that it
failed the test of rational connection, minimal impairment and
proportionality.
There was no rational connection between the limitation and the
goal of protecting heterosexual partners from income security on
the death of their partners. It also found that the cost was not
a constitutionally permissible justification of discrimination
under section 1 and judicial deference was not a presumptive
argument against judicial scrutiny.
1340
A conclusion to be reached after a section 1 analysis, in other
words the discriminatory provisions, could not be justified as
they had no rational connection and the courts were no longer
prepared to defer just on the basis of institutional competence.
I think the fair conclusion is that if parliament does not
decide these issues then the courts will take over. In my view
that effectively shuts out the voices of the people of Canada so
that the chattering classes get to have their say on what they
think should be the proper definition of spouse or conjugal
relationship. The courts can have their say as to what
constitutes a conjugal relationship, but the people of Canada and
parliament do not get their say.
The point I want to make is that Rosenberg, M and H, and Egan
did not deal with marriage. Rosenberg deals with the tax
advantages of a heterosexual couple. M and H deals with section
29 of the Family Law Act but, as such, marriage itself is left
alone.
It is a clear legal conclusion that in Egan, Rosenberg, M and H
on the issue of what constitutes a marriage has, per the terms of
the motion before us, not been attacked. While there has been a
great deal of public debate surrounding those court decisions,
there has been no initiative on the part of either the courts of
appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada to say that marriage is
anything other than what the motion states, namely a union
between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Having said that the institution of marriage and the definition
of marriage is not under attack does not mean that
parliamentarians can have a nice summer and enjoy themselves. In
my view, the courts have got themselves locked into a dialogue
out of which they cannot emerge because of the logic of their
positions.
Courts necessarily operate in a rights-based environment and
everything is put through that particular lens. Courts, by
definition, do not have a broad perspective. What is in front of
an individual judicial officer at any given time is a set of
litigants who deal on a narrow set of facts, on a particular set
of legal principles at any given time. Necessarily, the courts'
focuses are narrow and specific.
Parliament, however, is best able to look at the broad
socio-economic implications of changes to legislation.
Parliament, in its own funny little way, goes through this
committee type process where witnesses are brought in and a
variety of viewpoints are sought which have an effect on how the
government of the day deals with the issues. The process is
fairly open and democratic. Legislation emerges hopefully
encompassing what has been heard from witnesses. No judicial
inquiry can ever match the breadth of a parliamentary process.
I would submit that one of the reasons the court decisions have
been so controversial is that the court processes have ended up
dealing with language concepts that are very limiting by their
nature. The rights based and rights concept view of life is very
individualistic and does not deal very well with other
institutions in our society such as the family.
For instance, if one uses the concept of spouse, one necessarily
ends up expanding the language to accommodate the demands of same
sex people. It tends to render the meaning of spouse, as has
been understood over the millennia, as meaningless to many
others.
The reasons that the courts end up dealing with phrases like
“spouse” and “conjugal rights” is that their language is
limited and limited to a particular decision. They end up
expanding the language in the way language was never intended to
go in the first place and then of course that in turn offends
some people.
I would like to propose that the direction for the government in
this particular area should be to first de-conjugalize the
language. The first and foremost principle, as set out in the
motion of the hon. member, namely that the definition of marriage
remains as is and that the Government of Canada should give a
positive statement, rather than merely double negatives from
lawyers, that marriage is a separate institution recognized by a
variety of religious authorities throughout the millennia and
that it enjoys a unique and particular status in the lives of
Canadians.
Having said that, the second step of the process is much more
problematic. The conjugalizing of the definition of dependency
for the purposes of family law legislation, or for the purposes
of divorce, or for the purpose of pension entitlements has set up
a whole new set of discriminatory practices which the courts will
find endlessly frustrating.
My suggestion is that once we de-conjugalize those sorts of
definitions and move toward truer concepts of dependency and
inter-relationship we will avoid a lot of legal absurdities that
the courts are currently and inadvertently in the process of
setting up.
1345
The most obvious legal absurdity is that the people who have sex
will be entitled to certain kinds of benefits and the people who
do not will not. The dependencies are the same, the relationship
is the same, yet the entitlement to a panoply of benefits is
generated only by virtue of sex. I would suggest that is an
absurdity which sets up a level of discrimination which is
unnecessary and will be the source of a great deal of additional
litigation.
I would suggest that it is up to parliament to get the courts
out of some of their own logical absurdities. The suggestion
that you made, Mr. Speaker, with respect to domestic
partnerships, is in some respects entitled to a great deal of
scrutiny.
Other suggestions may be to maintain the definition of spouse
for married couples only and apply a different term, most likely
partner, for all other relationships, including common law, same
sex or non-conjugal. Many non-married couples use the term
partner for significant terminology, as is reflected in society
general. Or the definition of spouse could be used for all
non-married partnerships, including common law, same sex or
non-conjugal, and the terminology applied to married spouses
could be that of husband and wife.
These are only suggestions, but I would suggest that this is the
institution that best deals with those kinds of suggestions and
that the courts themselves are institutions to which we should
only defer in certain circumstances. As I see it, the courts are
quite prepared to defer to parliament and to listen to what
parliament has to say in dealing with this very vexing issue.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member from the Liberal Party seems to be in
contradiction with what the parliamentary secretary said earlier
about the supremacy of parliament. The member who just spoke
seems to be concurring with members of the opposition and others
who have said that parliament is supreme. The parliamentary
secretary clearly stated that the supreme court is supreme, so
there certainly is a conflict on that side of the House.
I know he spoke in support, generally speaking, of this motion,
but I want to know how he justifies the following statement:
“Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge
the federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the
same way that it recognizes opposite marriages in its
distribution of benefits”.
I am wondering how the member from the Liberal Party of Canada
can justify supporting this motion? We appreciate his support,
but there is a definite contradiction between the policy of the
Liberal Party of Canada and what they are saying in the House
today. How can he justify that?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, in
my view parliament is the proper forum to deal with this issue.
In fact it has a means to it that allows us to deal with what
apparently are irreconcilable concepts.
May I suggest that in some respect any motions that deal with
same sex marriage, or words or phrases to that effect, are in
fact imprecise versions of language. We want to be much tighter
in our use of language. We want particular words to mean
particular things to particular pieces of legislation.
My suggestion, and I think it is a good suggestion, which is
supported by others, is that if we de-conjugalize the issues
outside marriage we arrive at a solution or we move toward a
solution which is in fact far healthier and allows us to get past
this constant flinging of words back and forth, whether it is
spouse, conjugal, marriage, husband or wife. If we were far more
precise in our language then I think we would give the courts
instruction as to how to resolve the issues on a case by case
basis.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that my
colleague just asked because we are very concerned that the
policy resolution that was passed by the Liberals at their
convention is in fact what is behind a lot of the concerns that
we are raising today.
We talk a lot about the courts and we are very concerned that
there is going to be more and more of an erosion of our
fundamental beliefs. We need to send a message to the courts
that the definition of marriage is sacrosanct. We would like to
stop sliding down the slippery slope.
1350
The basic building block of our society is the family and we are
very concerned that this will lead to an erosion of that.
I would like to return to the court case which has formed the
background for this discussion, the M. v H. case, which was before
the supreme court. There was no disagreement on their legal
rights by the time that case got to the court. The case had
turned into an abstract argument over gay marriage. The monetary
aspect had been closed. Both sides wanted the court to rule in
the same way.
Why would the supreme court accept a case under those
circumstances? Why did it not wait to decide whether gay
marriage should be imposed on the country until a live argument
was before it? My feeling is that the court did not wait because
it was wanting to write gay marriage into the law. That is why
this whole discussion today is so important.
I would like to know if the member has any response to my
comments.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's premise
with respect to the analysis of M. v H. is completely false. M. v H.
did not deal with marriage. M. v H. dealt with section 29 of the
family law legislation of the province of Ontario, and it dealt
with that legislation in section 29. Section 1 concerns the
definition of marriage. Section 29 concerns spousal rights; that
is, what we would consider to be common law spousal rights. The
court analogized that common law heterosexual spousal rights are
equivalent to common law homosexual spousal rights, and that is
where it left it.
As to the issue that is on the floor, it has nothing to do with
marriage, as M. v H. had nothing to do with marriage. In fact, the
courts in Egan, Rosenberg and M. v H. all said the same thing.
They were not dealing with marriage; they were dealing with
rights and benefits that may accrue by virtue of a relationship.
The next step is to de-conjugalize the issue. If we do that we
have taken the steam right out of the debate.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am privileged to follow my colleague from Scarborough
East because I share many of the sentiments he has expressed.
First, let me say that I am a member of parliament. My
decisions are made here and they are made by my brain and my
conscience. I am not bound by any policy decisions made by a
Liberal convention. The Reform Party may be bound by the
suggestions from policy conventions but not me. These are merely
suggestions of policy that have come from the membership of the
Liberal party. But, when push comes to shove, as members of
parliament we have to decide on our own consciences in this
Chamber.
I have no difficulty saying that I support this motion. It is a
little premature for me because I would have liked more time over
the summer to formulate a better expression of my thoughts
concerning the controversy surrounding same sex couples in terms
of the benefits they should receive and the absolute necessity in
my mind in preserving the legal concept of marriage as a union of
opposite sex couples.
The reason I support this motion is because there are two very
important things behind the need to recognize the legality of
marriage as an opposite sex union. First, it is the idea that
many Canadians still believe, despite the fact that there are
some Canadians who have lost some faith in the various organized
churches, absolutely in the sanctity of marriage. We owe those
Canadians an obligation to respect their feelings on this issue.
We should not willy-nilly trample on something that has been a
tradition for many thousands of years.
For me the really crucial issue with respect to the legality of
an opposite sex union being termed a marriage is the idea of
adoption. I voted against my government several years back on
this very issue. I support absolutely the need to support
couples who are in an emotionally dependent relationship that
becomes materially dependent, be they same sex couples or couples
that are dependent for other reasons.
I feel very strongly that while I support that idea absolutely, I
am very concerned that we must never, in furthering that goal,
extinguish the rights of others. By this I mean specifically
children. My fear about recognizing same sex marriages is that
it would infuse a right for homosexual couples to adopt children.
1355
Right now there is a discretionary ability for homosexual
couples to adopt children and I think that is fine, because I am
not one to say that it is impossible, indeed, even unlikely, that
a homosexual couple might make excellent parents. What I am not
prepared to say is that, all things being equal, a homosexual
couple make equally as good parents as a heterosexual couple. I
do not think society and our understanding of the human psyche
has progressed that far that we can be prepared to make that
judgment.
The idea or the concept of retaining the legal concept of
marriage as an opposite sex union is, I think, extremely
important in terms of preserving the rights of children, the
right of a child to be brought up by heterosexual parents.
That being said, I really do welcome this debate, because what
has happened is that in the courts, when we leave it to the
courts, the judges sit back and they hear the evidence presented
before them. However, if that evidence is flawed or that
evidence is incomplete, then what happens is that the court will
make an incomplete decision.
We saw that in the use of the word conjugal, which came up in
Bill C-78. The government used the word conjugal based on its
use in previous court decisions. When I examined that, I
discovered that the courts did not consider the meaning of
conjugal. The courts merely made a change to existing
legislation and ignored the fact that conjugal means
heterosexual, unless we had a situation where even the supreme
court was implying that the word conjugal means same sex unions
when it does not mean that at all. What we have to do—
The Speaker: I stand, my colleague, to advise you that
you are now about halfway through your speech. In order that you
can keep the balance that you already have in your speech, may I
suggest that we proceed to Statements by Members and you will
have the floor when we return after question period.
[Translation]
We will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
THE PERSECHINI RUN
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
prominent resident in my riding of York North, Mr. Joe
Persechini, has raised over $2 million in the past 23 years to
aid children with physical disabilities and their families.
The Persechini Run is a fundraising event for Easter Seals. It
has grown from an event that raised $2,700 in its first year to
raising over $190,000 this year, with more than 3,000 people
involved as participants and volunteers.
I congratulate all of the people who took part in the Persechini
Run, especially the hundreds of schoolchildren. To Joe
Persechini, his team of volunteers and the community and business
sponsors I extend my greatest thanks.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very
special day in the House. The Reform Party is standing in
defence of the family and of marriage between a man and a woman.
There are other ways of supporting families too. For example,
we think that it is high time to free families from their
crushing tax load. We believe in leaving more money in the hands
of the people who have earned it so that they can provide for
their families. How can families be strong if half of their
earnings are confiscated in the form of taxes, making it a
constant struggle for them to make ends meet?
I am very appreciative of my family. After 38 years of
marriage, my wife and I have three children, two in-laws and four
grandchildren. However, thanks to the Liberal and Conservative
governments of the past 35 years, the collective share of the
debt spread over our 11 family members is over $200,000.
Can we not see that debt and taxes are a threat to our families?
Let us get debt and taxes down.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the global community recognized World Environment Day on June 5
and will recognize World Population Day on July 11.
1400
Population growth has a significant impact on our environment as
growing human activity around the world consumes the resources
that all living things require. Clean freshwater and farmland
are becoming more scarce. Fish are declining in the world's
rivers, lakes and oceans. The loss of forests impacts
biodiversity when habitats that shelter plant and animal species
are destroyed. Billions of tonnes of topsoil are lost through
erosion each year. Toxic chemicals in the environment especially
threaten the health of children, the elderly and the urban poor.
Our ecosystem and our health bear the brunt of these impacts.
My aim is not to dishearten but simply to raise awareness of the
links between population, the environment and human health. By
considering these links and the principles of sustainable
development and by formulating our priorities, policies and laws
we can make a great step forward.
* * *
LEUKEMIA
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to encourage this House to consider June as Leukemia
Awareness Month and to congratulate and thank the Leukemia
Research Fund of Canada for its hard work and dedication.
Approximately 3,300 Canadians will be diagnosed with leukemia
and 2,100 will die in 1999. When we think that the loss of
people like my friend the gifted filmmaker Philip Borsos will be
prevented in the future, we can see the importance of this fight.
I would like the House to recognize the work of the Leukemia
Research Fund of Canada.
The medical community has made tremendous progress in
understanding leukemia. Just this weekend at the 25th reunion of
my medical school class, my classmate Dr. Mark Minden illustrated
just how close they are to a cure. As the second leading cause of
death among children and adolescents, cancer and especially
leukemia deserve our attention.
On June 24 the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada will present
research grants to the best and most promising scientists who are
dedicated to finding a cure for leukemia. I would like to
congratulate the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada for all its
hard work. I am sure we will see a cure to leukemia very soon.
* * *
RELAY FOR A FRIEND
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have played a small part in the
Canadian Cancer Society 1999 Relay for a Friend held last weekend
in my riding. What the organizers and the participants achieved
in this event was truly amazing. Over a period of 12 hours,
2,000 participants raised $366,500 for cancer research and
equipment. We have all been touched by cancer at one time or
another either personally or through a loved one.
Many of those involved have survived cancer. Congratulations to
everyone involved.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for weeks we have been warning the government about the
devastating flood crisis in parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The survival of many farms is in serious jeopardy. U.S. farmers
hit by this flood will get $100 U.S. for every unseeded acre.
Canadian farmers are getting political rhetoric.
The government responded to last year's farm income crisis with
a program that is itself a disaster. It is so bad that the
Saskatchewan agriculture minister said at a rally in Regina this
weekend, “Forget about the forms, forget about everything else.
We have seen this thing doesn't work so let's use that as an
experience to make it work for everybody”.
Is the government listening? Useless programs and inaction from
this government are not going to cut it with western Canadian
farmers. They need solutions, not empty promises.
* * *
OPERATION BLUE STAR
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the month of June marks the 15th
anniversary of Operation Blue Star, when the Indian army stormed
the Golden Temple in Amritsar and 37 other Sikh religious
shrines. The 1984 attack resulted in the deaths of many innocent
men, women and children.
Religious freedom, which is protected here in Canada, was
violated. Canada's attachment to basic religious freedoms is in
many ways similar to that of the Sikh faith which upholds human
dignity regardless of country of origin, sex, race, skin colour,
creed or religion.
We must remember the victims of Operation Blue Star and ensure
that such a tragedy and abuse of religious freedom never happens
again.
* * *
[Translation]
LAVAL HOSPITAL
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
ceremony for the various Persillier-Lachapelle awards for 1998,
Laval hospital, which is located in my riding, was given the
award of excellence in the category “Personalization of care and
services”, for its respiratory rehabilitation program.
Laval hospital developed a respiratory rehabilitation program
for people with chronic pulmonary disease, who cannot obtain any
more relief from the standard medications.
A sizeable multidisciplinary team works with program
participants, providing them with a variety of services:
information for a better understanding of the disease, a
medically supervised exercise program, respiratory therapy, and
occupational therapy, to name but a few.
1405
Laval hospital was chosen for the Persillier-Lachapelle award
because of its strict global approach, its variety of actions,
its impact on research, and its multidisciplinary rehabilitation
program.
Sincere congratulations.
* * *
[English]
OCEANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know
more about the surface of the moon than about the sea floor. This
is curious considering oceans cover 75% of the earth and contain
97.5% of earth's water. With this in mind, the United Nations
declared June 8 World Oceans Day. The purpose of this day is to
create waves about the life sustaining role of oceans and inspire
us to take better care of our salty seas.
About seven million Canadians live in coastal communities, but
even people who have never seen the ocean are connected to it.
Water is constantly making its way from us and our regions to the
ocean through a network of waterways. All water flows to the sea
which is why it is crucial to keep these water systems clean and
healthy.
Global warming makes oceans even more important. They act as
both heaters and air conditioners for our planet.
I encourage all Canadians to become familiar with the Oceans Act
passed by the government, to learn more about oceans and to keep
in mind that our health is directly related to the health of our
oceans.
* * *
NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is a new government in New Brunswick today. Thank the Lord.
The election really was a horse race and what a finish it was.
The winner came in with a message which is that absolutely
nothing can stand in the way of people who agree it is time for
political change.
Hurray for New Brunswickers who demonstrated their political
muscle yesterday. They considered carefully the policies, the
parties, the leaders and the candidates. But most of all, they
weighed the past against the future, and the future won.
That is what change is. It is a powerful statement of faith in
new people and new ideas. It is about letting our children and
our youth have their say in their future. It is about hope and
energy going in new directions. Change is powerful. And it is
on its way to Ottawa. It is going to thunder through those front
benches and halls of power. It is coming around the bend now and
nothing will be able to stand in the way when it is time to
change the government. All I can say is, heads up, your time is
coming too.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD SKILLS COMPETITION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers have distinguished themselves in the latest Canadian
selections for the 35th annual world skills competition to be
held in the Olympic Stadium in Montreal from November 11 to 14
this year.
After a series of trade and technology skills tests conducted
over four days in Kitchener, Ontario, 25 of the 40 Canadian
representatives selected are from Quebec.
This is a continuation of the successful performances by Quebec
young people in the Canadian Skills Competitions held in
Montreal in 1996 and Vancouver in 1998.
I might point out that, in the last world event, only Quebecers
won any medals.
This year in Montreal more than 600 young people from 34
countries are expected to compete. We wish all participants the
best of luck, especially the Quebecers who will be representing
us.
* * *
[English]
FAMILY TRUSTS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
usually the rich and famous who get the Order of Canada but
Winnipegger George Harris is a true Canadian hero who deserves it
as much as anybody ever has.
In a classic David and Goliath story, Winnipegger George Harris
is taking on two giants: the mighty Bronfman family empire and
Revenue Canada. In 1991 the Bronfmans moved $2.2 billion in
family trusts to the United States. They should have paid $700
million in capital gains tax on that money but incredibly the
finance department and Revenue Canada did not go after it. Mr.
Speaker, if you or I owed $100 to Revenue Canada, it would hound
us into our graves.
George Harris has taken the matter to court. He wants to know
why the government is slashing budgets for social programs and
will not even try to collect $700 million from its corporate
buddies. I think George Harris is a hero for defending our
interests. I think George Harris should get the Order of Canada
for exposing this obscene loophole and demanding that it—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[Translation]
DRUMMONDVILLE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this summer,
Drummondville will again be a dynamic and diverse place to be.
For the second year running, the Légendes fantastiques will take
visitors on a fabulous imaginary voyage. Over 300 volunteers
and actors will dazzle crowds with breathtaking special effects
in a charming country setting.
Visit the model of a Quebec village from bygone days and travel
back in time for a glimpse of the life and history of our
forebears.
1410
From July 8 to 19, the atmosphere will be one of friendly fun
and festivity. The dancing and musical performances of the
Mondial des cultures are not to be missed.
Drummondville's very fortunate media representatives are here
today in the gallery and join with me in inviting members and
the public to pay us a visit this summer.
* * *
QUEBEC PREMIER
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, cracks are
already beginning to appear in Lucien Bouchard's government. Mr.
Bouchard is beginning not to like what he sees in Quebec.
He is not at all happy that associations and unions are making
demands he can no longer meet. He is not at all pleased with
criticism of his decisions. And he does not appreciate having
entire sections of his administration questioned.
In fact, the Quebec model and identity are not threatened:
Quebecers are seeing to that. What in fact seems to be
threatened is the PQ model. There is a difference.
* * *
[English]
NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, what a great
day it is for New Brunswick.
Today Bernard Lord and the New Brunswick Progressive
Conservative Party form the newly elected majority government.
Lord's campaign platform, a new vision for New Brunswick, sent
the right signals to voters, and he is ready for the job.
This election gave democracy back to the people. A Bernard Lord
government will listen and consult, and change the complacent
attitude of the last 12 years of government knows best.
Lord's New Brunswick Tories campaigned on a platform of lower
taxes. This victory proves taxpayers liked what they heard. The
federal Liberals can learn a good lesson from the New Brunswick
and Ontario campaigns. Tax relief is important to Canadians.
On behalf of New Brunswickers, the federal Tory caucus, and
particularly Bernard Lord's and my aunt Renie Lord-Herron, I wish
to congratulate Mr. Lord and the New Brunswick PCs on their
tremendous success.
Today, New Brunswickers embark on the first day of 200 days of
change, and it promises to be a great ride.
* * *
PARKDALE COMMUNITY CLEANUP DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently had the honour of attending Parkdale's fifth annual
community cleanup day.
The event was organized by Parkdale Collegiate students in
partnership with local residents, community groups and elementary
school students. On a cool and rainy Saturday morning, over 100
volunteers cleaned up parks, school grounds, back alleys and
offered assistance to seniors and the disabled in our community.
This year's event was co-ordinated by Kane Kakar, a young
student at Parkdale Collegiate under the leadership and guidance
of principal Ken Hanson.
Volunteers and projects such as this give Parkdale its heart and
soul. Their efforts to improve our community spirit and our
local environment serve as a role model to all constituents.
As the member of parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I am
delighted to offer my thanks and congratulations to all those who
contributed to the cleanup of our community on the fifth annual
Parkdale community cleanup day.
* * *
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what does
Maude Barlow have in common with beds and rats? All are the
central characters in movies sponsored by the National Film Board
of Canada. The total cost to Canadians for just these three
movies is over $670,000. These gems and many more can be found in
the latest edition of the waste report released earlier today.
Taxpayers did not only fund absurd movies. We have also spent
over $3 million to bail out banks for bad loans to a hot dog
franchisee in Quebec. We will continue to spend thousands of
dollars on millennium projects such as the grant for $130,000 to
21,000 musicians to try to break the world record for the largest
marching band.
I am surprised that the National Film Board did not make a movie
called “The Toilet”, a delightful look at how the Liberals can
flush taxpayers' money down the sewer.
* * *
[Translation]
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, every year
thousands of children, who have been sold by their parents or
kidnapped, become victims of sexual tourists cum child abuser.
Although two years ago, Canada passed legislation to prevent the
sexual exploitation of children abroad, a human rights defence
organization known as Human Rights Internet has criticized its
ineffectiveness.
When I tabled my bill, I criticized the limited scope and
difficulty of implementing the government's bill. Time has,
unfortunately, proven me right. The federal legislation never
had the teeth necessary to lay a single charge, and those who
tried to do so ran into a veritable wall.
If the government is using the same process to make known and
implement its legislation on excision, we have to ask ourselves
whether it really wants to comply with its own legislation and
its international commitments on human rights.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the House welcomes the news that the G-8 countries
agreed today to a draft UN security council resolution which
promises to bring us one step closer to peace in Kosovo.
The fact that Russia is now a signatory to the deal clearly adds
credibility to the resolution with the Serbs, but to proceed this
resolution must also carry the judgment of the Chinese
government.
Is the prime minister confident that this UN resolution will in
fact proceed and that China will not use its security council
veto to block it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks a very good question.
If all the steps are followed carefully and if this agreement is
implemented in the way that has been agreed, I am pretty sure the
Chinese will go along.
As the House knows, there is a series of steps that has to be
met before the resolution will be presented at the security
council. If those steps are respected by all the parties, I am
pretty sure the Chinese will not use their veto on that issue.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously a number of issues need to be ironed out with
respect to implementation of the G-8 peace plan, but one of the
central problems is the question of how to implement a ceasefire,
particularly with the Kosovo Liberation Army remaining something
of a wild card.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether any progress has been
made in agreeing to the terms of the ceasefire and whether or not
the KLA is being brought into these discussions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the resolution that will eventually be adopted by the
United Nations security council there is provision for the
disarmament of the KLA.
As to the terms of the negotiations, I am not in a position to
say with whom people are talking at this time. All the G-8 has
agreed that to have peace in Kosovo we have to proceed with the
disarmament of the KLA, just as we want the Serb army to withdraw
and go back to Belgrade.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 800 Canadian forces personnel are on their way to the
former Yugoslavia. The Minister of National Defence is musing
about sending more, even though his chief of defence staff has
advised that may be beyond our capability.
It is not unreasonable for Canadians to want to know what our
troops will be doing, what role they are assigned to, and whether
or not it is within our capability. Canadians want specific
answers to these concerns and questions, and not just vague
assurances.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what specific role
Canadian forces will play in the implementation of the G-8 peace
plan and what resources will be made available to them in order
to do the job?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can tell the Canadian people, as we agreed some weeks
ago. Briefings were given to members of the House and to the
media about the role of these 800 people.
As to the next group to possibly go, it is being discussed at
this time with the NATO commanders. The Canadian government is
not in a position at this moment to agree because we do not know
exactly to our satisfaction all the details that are needed to
make a final decision.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has avoided answering more than 50 questions in
the last three weeks about Shawinigate. He and his human shield
have done everything possible to hide their shame for the
Shawinigan shame, hoping it will just go away. I have news. It
will not go away.
The Prime Minister insists that he does not own the shares he is
trying to sell. He cannot explain why he is selling something
that he does not really own but, gee whiz, it is like we are all
just supposed to accept it and go on, right?
We do not and we would like an answer to the question once and
for all. Where is the receipt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not believe I can add to what the Deputy Prime Minister and
I have said in the House.
Before I became Prime Minister I sold those shares and I gave
the problem or the receivable to my trustee as with my other
assets. She is in charge of managing it. Mr. Wilson on May 6
explained the situation in front of a committee of the House of
Commons.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is just great that he gave the problem to somebody else.
In fact he says that he sold something that he did not really
sell, that somebody bought something but he did not really buy
it. It is as clear as mud.
1420
This Liberal arrogance, this going to see me through attitude,
is just not working. Just ask Camille Thériault and Dalton
McGuinty how well that works.
We have asked the Prime Minister to produce the proof that he is
not in a conflict of interest and he just tells us that he is
being a good little MP. We asked him to show us proof that the
shares were actually sold to somebody and up comes the human
shield. The question remains. Where is the proof?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am told that the ethics counsellor looked into that,
discussed it with my trustees and reported it to the committee on
May 6, last month.
I said, and I repeat, I sold those shares. For the rest, I have
done my job as a member of parliament helping to create jobs in
an area where they have 12% unemployment, as it is my duty. I
have been doing what the members of the Reform Party by the big
numbers have done for their constituents, making sure that
federal programs apply to their constituents as I do for mine.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the apparent conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister
and business people in his riding, the Prime Minister could
easily remove all suspicion.
The Prime Minister, who says he sold his shares before being
sworn in, claims that the sale was final.
I ask him quite simply why he does not table the bill of sale.
It seems to me that would resolve the whole mess we are in at
the moment.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will repeat the same thing over again. I signed the sale of my
shares before becoming Prime Minister, and gave that to the
person looking after my trust, as we are required to do.
The person in question is responsible and spoke with Mr. Wilson,
who explained what he learned from this person. She is the one
who has been handling these matters since November 1993, when I
became Prime Minister.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says he sold his shares before being sworn in
as Prime Minister.
So, the decision is his. He did so as a member of parliament, as
a citizen, and not as Prime Minister. The trust is not involved.
It would be so easy to remove all suspicion. Why does he not
table the bill of sale he made as member—not as Prime Minister
and not through the trust—but on his own before he was sworn in?
It is simple. It would put an end to all these questions and all
these suspicions weighing on him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Wilson discussed this problem with the person in charge of
the trust in which I am required to deposit my assets. This
person manages the matter and discussed with Mr. Wilson, who
testified before a committee of the House and provided all the
relevant facts in response to the questions put to him.
As for me, my assets are in a trust and I have no say in the
matter. I leave its management to the person in charge of it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, quite
seriously, the Prime Minister could avoid a good number of
problems if he simply complied with this request and agreed to
clarify the situation.
I am asking him once again, quite simply this: in light of all
the hullabaloo surrounding this situation, and the fact that the
sale occurred when he was just an MP and not the Prime Minister,
does he not think that it would be so much simpler if he were
just to produce the record of sale? That will settle it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Wilson, who is responsible for ethics for all members of the
House, has looked into the matter. I repeat: all of my assets
are managed by a trustee. I have no oversight over the
management.
I have done what the law and regulations require me to do, and
all this was explained by Mr. Wilson before a committee of the
House of Commons, on May 6.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister will understand that some doubt still remains when he
refers to his ethics adviser, this person who is hard to speak
to, who works on order, and reports to him, not the House of
Commons.
I ask him once more: this business of keeping this sale secret,
refusing to produce something as simple as a paper stating “I
have sold my shares and here are the signatures”, does this not
leave even the Prime Minister with doubts?
1425
He could clarify the situation. Let him do what needs doing,
then. Is there something in this contract that we ought not to
see? If so, he should let us know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Wilson is the one to deal with problems of this nature for
all MPs and ministers. He has looked at the portfolio my
trustee is handling for me. I have no right of supervision
whatsoever over that trust.
I turned my assets over to it and years from now, when I leave
this position, I will see whether the trustee has handled my
affairs well or not. That is when I will know whether to laugh
or to cry, but right now I have no say in this, I depend on her
competency and I trust her greatly.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
The House is once again set to vote on the Senate's budget of
over $50 million. Here stands Canada on the eve of the 21st
century and we still have an unelected, unaccountable Senate, a
Senate that refuses to account for how it spends public dollars.
Why is the government content to push through yet another Senate
budget without public scrutiny?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate is an institution of this parliament that is
part of the Canadian constitution. It is there until it is
changed in the constitution. It is a very useful institution and
is doing a good job for Canada.
We wanted to change it some years ago. I remember very well
that when we wanted to have a reformed and elected Senate many
people on the other side voted against it. So we have the Senate
that has been given to us by the Reform Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a lot
of Canadians beg to differ. A lot of Canadians had hoped to see
from the government a little more interest in real democracy.
The Canadian Senate has no place in a modern democracy. It is a
joke and an embarrassment. It is indefensible.
Will the Prime Minister agree to write to the first ministers?
Will he sound out their support for ridding us of this relic and
moving on with democratic renewal in the coming century?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no desire by the premiers at this time to spend
a lot of time on changing the constitution to change the Senate.
They did it for months and months to no avail. I am telling the
House that they do not want to do this at this time.
When we had a chance we voted for reform of the Senate. The NDP
voted for reform of the Senate too, but I am sorry to report to
the House that the Reform Party made sure that we kept the Senate
in exactly the same form it is today.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, so
far, we know, and there is evidence to back this up, that the
Canadian government's position with respect to the KLA has always
been complete disarmament. However, we know that the United
States and the G-8 nations have now decided to talk about
demilitarizing the KLA.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he tell us the
difference between demilitarizing and disarming the KLA and what
the Canadian government's position is today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's position, like that of all the G-8 nations, is
to ensure that the Kosovars can return home safely.
This means that the Kosovo liberation army and Serb forces must
leave the area so that the international force can restore peace
and freedom for the Kosovars, who, I hope, will return as soon
as possible, within a few weeks, to their own country.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
with all due respect, the Prime Minister is unaware of the
agreement that has been negotiated with the G-8 nations. There
is a big difference between demilitarizing and disarming.
Canadian troops will be among the first to enter Kosovo.
1430
If the KLA is not disarmed, there is a risk. What are the
Canadian army's rules of engagement? Will it be able to disarm
the KLA or will it let KLA soldiers leave with their arms?
I would like the Prime Minister to accurately inform us on this
important issue. I hope he will be able to answer clearly this
time.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the resolution was clear.
[English]
It demands that the KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups
end immediately all offensive action and comply with the
requirement for demilitarization as laid down by the head of the
international security council in consultation with the Special
representative of the secretary general.
That is the text that has been agreed to by everybody. It has
satisfied me and I hope it will satisfy the hon. member.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals were in opposition they said that Sinclair
Stevens had mixed his public and private business. In fact, the
now heritage minister went berserk trying to force Sinclair to
admit he was wrong. Berserk is looking kind of good right now.
There is a simple way to clear up questions about the Prime
Minister's similar conflict. Owning the Grand-Mère shares places
the Prime Minister in a clear conflict of interest. If they were
sold, where is the receipt?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when Mr. Wilson was at the industry committee on May 6 he said
that that it was a sale free and clear of the Prime Minister's
interest in that golf course. He also said that a sum of money
had been denominated and that there was a repayment schedule.
I think what Mr. Wilson said to the committee is very clear.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry, but we are trying to give the Prime Minister an
opportunity to tell Canadians that he did nothing that would
constitute a conflict of interest. Perhaps I can put the
question another way: Où est le reçu?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will quote Mr. Wilson.
[English]
He said that in his view this was a done deal and that there
were no financial connections regarding the Prime Minister in
either the auberge or the golf course. It is very clear. He is
an official who has been looking into that and is consulted by
all the members of parliament. I have confidence in him.
My trust fund has to administer my assets. As I said in French,
it is only at the end of the process that I will know what has
been done. It is a blind trust and blind means blind. I am just
doing what is required. From the day I became Prime Minister, I
have had no decisions to make on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister refuses to table the record of sale, whereas he
sold his shares even before becoming PM. He says it is in the
hands of the trust.
There is something he could do very easily, namely instruct the
trustee to make the record of sale public.
Why does he not instruct the trustee to make the record of sale
public? Then the members and the public will be able to make a
judgment based on facts, rather than on an act of faith in the
Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the trustee is the one in charge of these things. Under the
circumstances, ministers, like the Prime Minister, have no right
of supervision. It is a matter of having a blind trust manage
one's assets. This is done for all ministers, as it is for me.
I have said all I had to say. I have nothing to add.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we are not asking the Prime Minister to administer his shares, we
are merely asking whether this was the case.
There are two choices for clarifying the situation, dispelling
suspicion and tidying up the matter. One is to do it himself,
because he did this before being sworn in, and the other is to
ask the trustees to do it, and stop hiding behind the ethics
counsellor.
The ethics counsellor is not controlled by the House. He is
hired by the Prime Minister, is answerable to the Prime Minister
and seems to be receiving his orders from the Prime Minister.
It makes no sense.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe what makes no sense is the question itself.
* * *
1435
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been asking the solicitor general for weeks about drugs in
prisons.
He said that he knows about it and that he is studying it. What
he does not say is who is doing the study, how long it will take
and what the scope of the study actually is. My sources say that
no such study is taking place in these prisons.
Since drugs are out of control in the prisons, why does the
solicitor general not have a plan to do something about it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the House, when
I was appointed solicitor general I became aware of the massive
drug problem.
I have asked Correctional Service Canada to review the drug
program in the penal system. It has indicated to me that it will
have a report on the review in about three months.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is refreshing that the solicitor general will know about it in
three months. I have known about it for six years.
Let me quote the solicitor general in the House last week. He
said that after prisoners are on parole, there needs to be some
type of program to help people who are addicted. What does he
mean by after they are on parole and in some type of program?
This does not sound like a plan, it sounds like a cop-out to me.
After all these years of drug abuse in our prisons, why does the
solicitor general have no plan at all?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague has known this
for six years. I thought he found out last week.
If I did have all the answers that were needed for the alcohol
addiction and drug abuse problem in the prisons, I would not have
to do a review, I would just tell them how to do it. We must do
a review.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
impression there is double standard in government.
While the Prime Minister is asking the Minister of Finance not
to intervene in transportation matters because he has interests,
he boasts about how he intervenes in matters in which he has
interests.
Why may the Minister of Finance not intervene in matters that
concern him in cabinet, when the Prime Minister must intervene
because it is his duty to his constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
far as interests are concerned, I sold them.
When people in my riding apply for grants available to all
ridings with high unemployment, I do my duty as an MP and I hope
that the member for Roberval does the same.
I have intervened in cases, but I have never intervened with
respect to the interests in a golf club that I do not have and
that has never received any sort of grant from the Canadian
government.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's defence is that he sold his interests. But nobody
has seen hide nor hair of a deed of sale.
What we want the Prime Minister to do, if he wants to be left in
peace, is to table the deed of sale.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all I can say is what I have said. I have nothing to add.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
indeed there is a drug problem in the prisons. Let us take a
look at what happened last Saturday in the Kingston Penitentiary.
After prisoners were observed consuming and possibly concealing
drugs during an evening yard exercise, they were penned up and
taken back to their cells, but the final group of them would not
go. What they did was break everything in sight and cause
$10,000 worth of damage.
This is the last event that has taken place. There have been
many events that have taken place over a number of years. Why
has the minister just suddenly discovered that there is a drug
problem?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, your hon. colleague is the one who
discovered a week ago that there is a drug problem. We have known
for years that there is a drug problem. We have indicated that
we will address the drug problem, and that is exactly what we
will do.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask hon. members to please
address the chair in the question and in the answer.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
is that not really something? They have known about it for a
long time and yet the minister has no plan. He has just started
his study. He said that we have to do a study in order to be
able to find out what we will do. Dither and dither.
Why does he have no plan? Why will he not tell us about the
scope of the study that is supposedly going on?
1440
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, there was a
review done in 1995. A review was also done a year ago which
indicated that there has been about a 300% decrease in drug use
in prisons.
As I have indicated, even 12% is too much. We intend to address
the problem.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister says he sold his shares in 1993. The Deputy
Prime Minister told us yesterday that the alleged buyer returned
the shares to the trustee.
This is saying that the trust has the shares belonging to the
Prime Minister. He is not the one administering them, we agree,
but they are in his trust.
The Prime Minister is therefore in the same situation as the
Minister of Finance, who has shares in a trust, but who
withdraws from Cabinet discussions on shipping, whereas the
Prime Minister boasts of having participated in the awarding of
funding in his region to business people.
Can he explain all these about-faces to us? Does he not think it
would be clearer to table the bill of sale so we might have
something specific rather than acts of faith?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has said exactly the opposite of what the Deputy
Prime Minister said yesterday. He said clearly that the shares
had never been returned.
I sold and I gave the debt to my trustee, and the shares are not
being administered, as far as I know. This is exactly what the
ethics counsellor said in his testimony before the committee on
May 6.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
On May 12 the minister appointed Arthur Kroeger to work with
industry stakeholders to implement a framework for grain handling
and transportation reform. Farmers and industry have asked for a
review of the costs of moving grain by rail as part of the
Kroeger process.
Will the minister commit to the House that railway costs will be
examined?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said when I announced Mr. Kroeger's
appointment, a full costing review would delay the whole process
by a year. There is no question that for Mr. Kroeger to do a
thorough job, he has to get a real handle on the true costs of
grain transportation by rail.
I am pleased to announce that Mr. Kroeger has requested the
Canadian Transportation Agency to conduct an immediate analysis
for him so that he can be assisted in his work and report to me
by the end of September.
* * *
PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general just said that we had a 300% decrease. A 300%
decrease should mean that we have a zero problem, but we now have
a massive problem.
In my riding, a convicted armed robber said that when he went
into prison decades ago he had no drug problem. When he came out
he was addicted to heroin. Nothing has changed.
Where is the solicitor general's plan? Who is doing it? When
are we going to get some results?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the opposition members
realize there is a problem. Quite simply, no human could come up
with a plan for alcoholism and drug abuse in a couple of months.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I came here I was on an advisory committee to the deputy
commissioner for the Pacific region years ago. We complained
about bleach being in the prisons to sterilize needles. We
complained about a convicted killer who actually murdered his
wife in prison during a conjugal visit by overdosing her with
heroin. The problem has been there for years.
I will again ask the solicitor general when we will get a
solution to this?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, yes, the problem has been
there for years. Yes, we did do a survey in 1995 and we did a
survey a year ago. There has been a 300% decrease in the use of
drugs and alcohol in our penal institutions. It is not enough.
We will do more.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, during the hearings of the subcommittee on taxation and
families, witnesses from across the political spectrum spoke of
the need to extend and improve maternity and parental benefits.
In view of the widespread agreement that clearly exists in the
country, will the Minister of Human Resources Development commit
his government today to extending and improving maternity and
parental benefits for Canadian families?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to
reading the report of the subcommittee. I always look forward to
constructive ideas to improve the social security of our Canadian
families and our Canadian workers. I will certainly look into
any creative and imaginative solutions and ideas that the
parliamentary committee might want to submit to the government.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, three months ago the minister realized, several years
after everyone else, that this government's 1996 Employment
Insurance Act discriminated against women. As usual, he promised
to study the problem. The 56% of women who are ineligible for
maternity benefits do not need a study to tell them what is
wrong.
How much longer must they wait before the minister stops
studying and starts acting?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on
this topic that we are monitoring very closely the impact of our
EI reform on families and on women in particular. Indeed, we
have identified that the re-entrance requirements might be
penalizing women in a particular way. I have been raising this
issue with my officials and we are looking into solutions because
we want to serve citizens as well as we can.
Indeed, it is important to bring in the right solutions to the
right problems and not jump to hasty conclusions, as the member
is doing right now.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on April 8
the Minister of National Defence testified before the defence
committee that the government was a matter of weeks away from
initiating the maritime helicopter program to replace the Sea
Kings. We have also been told that the statement of requirement
has been done for months.
Where is the statement of requirement for the Sea King
replacements? Is it at the chief of air staff level, the chief
of defence staff level, the armed forces council or gathering
dust on the minister's desk?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not gathering dust anywhere. We are putting
the final touches on it and hope to be able to bring it forward
soon because we want to get on with the replacement of the Sea
King helicopter. It has provided yeoman service for the Canadian
forces and it continues to be well maintained, but eventually it
has to be replaced and we need to get on with doing that and we
intend to.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
the province of New Brunswick the people wiped out the Liberals
because they got answers like that. They never got a straight
one. This Liberal government is going to go too if it does not
give me some straight answers.
Where is the statement of requirement for the Sea King
replacement? Is it at the chief of air staff level or is the
minister waiting until parliament recesses for the summer so he
can get out of the heat on this issue?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what part of my response
the hon. member does not understand. I made it quite clear that
we want to replace them. We are waiting on the statement of
requirement. All of the entities, as the hon. member knows, are
working on the statement of requirement. If we could get it out
today or tomorrow, I would love to do that. I would love to do
that here and now. We are going to get it out just as quickly as
we possibly can.
* * *
KYOTO
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. It is a well known fact
that federal tax subsidies to the petroleum industry stand in the
way of Canada meeting its Kyoto commitment. In 1997 the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development
recommended the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel
industry.
Does the Minister of Finance agree that if we are to achieve
Canada's Kyoto commitment the government has to eliminate the
counterproductive tax subsidies currently allowed to the fossil
fuel industry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, it is the government's position that we
must, at the same time, create a strong economy, create jobs and
protect the environment. That is why in the 1997 budget the
government increased direct financial support for energy
efficiency and for renewable energy. It is also why in the 1998
budget the government moved to narrow the gap between renewables
and non-renewables by extending the benefits to the extent of
$150 million for renewable energy projects.
It is also why throughout its budgets the government has
extended funding for environmental technologies and why we will
continue in that vein.
* * *
1450
TORONTO PORT AUTHORITY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Toronto port authority weighed anchor today and the
Minister of Transport has maintained his flawless record of
questionable appointments to port authority boards.
Contrary to the Canada Marine Act, he rejected three out of four
nominees of port users and he made personal selections, including
Robert Wright, a close friend of the Prime Minister.
Is he so personally insecure that he cannot bear the thought of
an independent board or is he just doing what he is told?
The Speaker: I would rather we de-personalize the
questions, if it is at all possible.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has got his facts wrong.
In this case the Canada Marine Act provides for the appointment
of four nominees, four directors, in consultation with users. To
facilitate this process we set up port advisory committees across
the country.
By and large the system has worked well. There was a small
problem in Vancouver where there were not sufficient names from
which I could select. This also happened in the case of Toronto.
The people who were selected are of the highest calibre. Their
names were put forward in consultation with the users. I regret
that there was some flaw in the process at the port advisory
committee, but I think the people of Toronto will be well served
by this particular group.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning, the G-8 foreign affairs ministers reached an
understanding on the text of a resolution that will be debated in
the security council with a view to ending the conflict in
Kosovo.
We have just learned that the G-8 is also recommending cessation
of bombing in order to facilitate passage of the resolution in
the security council.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
Before the security council passes this resolution, could he
tell the House what Canada's specific contribution will be to
the new international security force in Kosovo, or KFOR, and to
the effort—
The Speaker: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
soon as the Yugoslav army generals have begun withdrawing their
troops, bombing will cease, and the United Nations will consider
the resolution. This is the sequence of events provided in the
agreement.
As to Canada's participation, 800 troops are already assigned
and will arrive soon in Macedonia. We may be sending more.
At this point, the Department of National Defense and NATO are
looking at how Canada might participate, and when we have more
details, we will be able to tell you if we are going to add—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
[English]
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today in testimony before the health committee Dr.
Patricia Baird, a geneticist who headed up the Royal Commission
on New Reproductive Technologies, said that young women can earn
as much as $50,000 as an egg donor, this despite a voluntary
federal moratorium on buying and selling human eggs and sperm.
Will the Minister of Health send a clear message to fertility
clinics which are defying his moratorium and say no; no to egg
selling, egg buying and egg bartering? Will he give assurances
to all Canadians that whenever he reintroduces the long awaited
legislation on reproductive technologies it will include a
definitive prohibition on commercialization in this area?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
have already told the House, I intend to table legislation later
this year which will deal with the whole question of reproductive
technologies.
In fact I have met with Dr. Baird and with a variety of other
people who are knowledgeable in the area. I am consulting with
them and with many others in preparing the legislation. I assure
the member and the House that the legislation, when tabled, will
deal with all of these areas.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has just said that he accepts the demilitarization
of the KLA. He has said many times “disarm”. The Minister of
National Defence has said many times “disarm”. The Minister of
Foreign Affairs has said “disarm”.
Does this mean that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has folded
to the Americans at the G-8 meeting and is putting our
peacekeepers in danger's way by not disarming the KLA?
1455
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, demilitarization and disarmament are not
incompatible. We will need both of those things to happen.
Disarmament of the KLA will happen in the initial stages. It is
in the interests of the KLA to disarm so that the peacekeepers
can go in to allow the Kosovo refugees to be able to re-enter
their country in peace and security. It was foreseen that way in
the Rambouillet talks to which the KLA agreed.
* * *
NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH STRATEGY
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this morning the rural caucus of Liberal
MPs presented to the Minister of Health a report on the
development of a national rural health strategy. The report
calls for a co-ordinated and sustained focus on health care in
rural Canada. Will the minister be acting on the concerns of
rural Canadians in adopting the recommendations of this report?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning I received from the hon. member, in his capacity as
chair of the rural Liberal caucus, this remarkable report which
contains a variety of excellent recommendations. I intend to act
on most of those recommendations shortly.
To begin with, I should say that we have already taken important
steps such as appointing the executive director of rural health,
Dr. John Wooton, who is in the gallery today and who is doing a
fine job preparing our policy.
We have also set aside money in the budget for rural health
initiatives. Throughout the coming months we will be consulting
directly with Canadians on their priorities. We intend to make
sure that we have one tier of health care in this country.
* * *
CANADA MARINE ACT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in the previous answer of the Minister of Transport I
was not sure whether he said highest calibre or highest
contributions.
The new Canada Marine Act was supposed to depoliticize port
governance in this country. It was a lot better during the
former port commissions than it is now under the new Canada port
authorities.
Why does the government even bother to pass legislation like the
Canada Marine Act which it then persistently ignores?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have now put in place 12 of the 18 ports. The
process has gone remarkably smoothly right across the country. We
have put people in place who have reflected user concerns. There
have been a couple of flaws, one in Vancouver and now in Toronto,
which I regret. However, all of the people who were nominated
came via the user community route and were fully nominated in
consistency with the Canada Marine Act.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S POLITICAL FUTURE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said he was going to
introduce a bill on the rules governing Quebec's accession to
sovereignty.
On June 22, 1990, Robert Bourassa stated “Whatever is said and
done, Quebec is a distinct society responsible for its own
destiny today and forever”.
Does the minister seriously think he can bypass the law and
Quebec's National Assembly and impose his Canadian rules in the
debate on Quebec's political future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unless they have clearly opted out of Canada, Quebecers
have the inalienable right to be Canadians.
The problem with the Bloc Quebecois and the sovereignist leaders
is that they know Quebecers want to stay in Canada. That is why
they want to use confusion and trickery in carrying out their
plan, and that is not on. It is against democracy and against
the law in this country.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Minister of National Defence and it
concerns the federal expropriation of the Nanoose Bay testing
range in British Columbia. On May 5 the federal negotiator
agreed that 11 kilometres in the southwest corner of the range
were not required and that another 11 kilometres would be
dedicated for public use.
Why is the Liberal government now seizing the land which it has
admitted it does not need for military purposes?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a change of use or a change
in the practices from what they have been for some 30 years. The
area we use is necessary for these purposes, but every provision
is made in order for pleasure craft and other boaters to be able
to pass in and out, as has been the case for many years. We are
not talking about any change at all and we are not talking about
seizing anything. We are going through the appropriate
expropriation process which involves giving fair market value for
the property.
* * *
1500
AMHERST
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In January I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the
millennium project requesting that a vacant public building in
Amherst to be turned over to the town of Amherst. The building
has been vacant and empty for 10 years. No other government
agency wants it.
It is available. It would make a very appropriate millennium
project to turn it over to the town. Will the minister approve
that transfer?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would be happy to look into this matter further.
I think this matter may well involve the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I will take
this up with him and get back to the hon. member as soon as
possible.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of the following persons and groups.
First I would like to introduce my brother Speaker from the
Irish House of Representatives, Mr. Sémus Pattison, and a
delegation from Ireland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw the attention of
hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency
Abdul Aziz Abdul Ghani, Chairman of the Consulative Council of
the Republic of Yemen.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TAX EQUITY FOR CANADIAN FAMILIES WITH
DEPENDENT CHILDREN
The Speaker: Last Thursday a question of privilege was
raised in the House whereby one hon. member alleged that another
hon. member had made a statement about a subcommittee report that
was made. The hon. member who was named in the allegation was
the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I said that I would hold in abeyance any decision until we heard
from the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges and he is in his
place today. I would like to go directly to him.
1505
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify
this situation.
I have too much respect for the House of Commons and the Speaker
to leak any document. I find the comments of the member for
Sherbrooke, who claims that over three years these kinds of
documents have been leaked, a bit exaggerated since he has only
been in the House less than eight months, I believe.
To get directly to the point, I did give an interview to the
Toronto Star. From the outset it was clear to the reporter
that it was my personal opinion. If members take the opportunity
to read the headline of that article, they will see that it says
“MP Report”. It does not comment at all on what I reported in
the House of Commons and in the subcommittee per se.
I was also approached by another newspaper reporter as early as
last Friday who told me that they had in their possession the
said draft report, and I refused comment again.
I draw the attention of the House to a quote in that article of
the Conservative member for Fundy—Royal who proposed a $700
refundable tax credit per child. In the subcommittee last
Wednesday the member for Fundy—Royal admitted to talking to the
same reporter that I talked about.
In my opinion all I did was reflect my personal opinion. I made
that clear with the reporter when I spoke to him. I might have
erred in judgment, but in no way did I ever disclose the contents
of the report which will probably be tabled in the House
tomorrow.
The Speaker: The hon. opposition House leader wanted to
intervene last Thursday on this exact matter. I will recognize
the hon. House leader of the opposition, but may I put into
context what we are talking about.
To reiterate, as I understand it, last week we had an hon.
member alleging that another hon. member made a statement about
some of the things that were discussed in a meeting of a
subcommittee. We are honour bound not to repeat anything from
meetings which are held in camera and we take all hon. members at
face value.
Today the hon. member who was alleged to have spoken has made a
statement in the House of Commons. He says, and I want to be
corrected if I do not understand it, categorically that he did
not make any statement of any material forthcoming from this
meeting. That is my understanding. Is that correct?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I
would also like to point out for the House that these meetings
were not in camera. They were public meetings.
The Speaker: The issue here is: Was this information
leaked or not? We have one hon. member alleging that it was
leaked material. We have the hon. member who is alleged to have
leaked the material saying categorically that he did not. We at
all times take the word of hon. members of parliament and we are
honour bound in that way.
With that in mind, and before I render a final decision, I will
hear very briefly from the opposition House leader if he has
anything to add.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what we have facing us is something a lot bigger than this
particular incident.
1510
A report from procedure and House affairs on leaked documents
that was supposed to resolve the issue of confidence and
confidentiality within the House of Commons was tabled in the
House, but that was it. It was not even concurred in. We as a
House are supposed at least to concur in that report, at least
agree to it so that we could get some guidance from the Chair.
That has not happened.
Since that document has been produced by the committee, there
have been at least three such incidents which have been matters
of complaint by members here.
It seems to me this will not go away. I think the onus is on
the Chair to make some decision. Obviously the procedure and
House affairs committee could not make the decision. The House in
its entirety is incapable of making the decision because it will
not make any decisions on this matter.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to set some standards and guidelines, to
set some rules and to provide some sanctions for those who show
contempt of the House and abuse the privileges of the House.
The Speaker: The hon. member of course is not addressing
himself to this specific issue.
With regard to the specific issue that I am dealing with now,
which is the allegation that the hon. member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges leaked information, I accept and I want the
House to accept the hon. member's word. I consider the matter
closed.
With regard to the other matter that the opposition House leader
has raised, this was put into the hands of the committee on
procedure. We are awaiting its report. It has not been
concurred in.
If it is before the House I would tend to be informed about it,
but if it is not brought to the House in very short order I want
you to know that I do not feel it is the personal responsibility
of the Chair to make the rules for this House. It is up to the
House to decide how it will conduct itself. It is up to the
Speaker to see to it that the rules of the House are adhered to.
I do not believe that this parliament or any other parliament
should be subject solely to what the Speaker of the day wants to
introduce as the rules. I believe that the Speaker is the
servant of the House, and he or she will take direction from the
House when the time comes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have often had occasion in the House to raise the problems of
leaked committee documents and reports. I have brought numerous
problems to your attention. The need to find a solution to these
problems has become so great that even the report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was to analyse
these cases and propose sanctions, has itself been leaked. It is
ridiculous beyond belief.
Given what has gone on here for the last two or three years or
so, with more and more of these leaks taking place and members
saying they are not responsible for releasing documents to be
tabled in the House before they are made public, now we are
wondering whether the rule of confidentiality still applies in
the House and in committees, which are an extension of the
House.
1515
We in the Bloc Quebecois are wondering whether these
parliamentary rules and traditions should be taken seriously in
future, because the situation is becoming ridiculous.
A solution must be found because I, as a parliamentarian, have
the feeling that my rights and privileges are slipping away from
me. In case after case, no solution has been proposed to
prevent documents from being leaked before they are tabled in
the House.
It is too easy for a member who is quoted four times in an
article to say that that was not what he said. At a certain
point, people should stop taking us for idiots.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is not usual for the
Chair in any way to give directions of this type to the House,
but I suggest to all hon. members that any member of the House
can move concurrence in a report from committee. When this is
done, this could trigger a full-fledged debate about this
particular report to which we are referring.
Hon. members could get the specific rules from the table
officers, but I believe we need to know 48 hours ahead of time.
If it is the wish of the House to have a full-fledged debate on
this particular matter, then it is a decision which will be taken
by the House. I as the Speaker will react as soon as the House
decides what it wants to do.
I am going to put that aside for now and I am going to go
directly to a point of order.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the solicitor
general referred to a review of drugs in prison in 1995 and again
in his supplementary he said last year. I assume that is 1998.
According to the rules of this House, through you, Mr. Speaker,
I ask the solicitor general to table those reviews.
The Speaker: Although the solicitor general referred to a
report, I will review the blues but I do not think that the
solicitor general referred to this. However, I will hear some
advice.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, citation 495(3) of Beauchesne's
states:
The Speaker: I think this is clear. I did not hear
the hon. solicitor general quote directly from it. I will review
the blues and if it is necessary, I will come back to the House.
During the 35th Parliament, the last parliament, one of our
colleagues, Mr. Hugh Hanrahan, who was a very respected member of
the House and of the Reform Party took ill. Just recently he
passed away and today we are going to have tributes. We will
begin with the leader of the Reform Party.
* * *
THE LATE HUGH HANRAHAN
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join with others in paying tribute to
Hugh Hanrahan, the former member of parliament for
Edmonton—Strathcona who passed away on May 19.
Hugh served in this place from 1993 to 1997. He was
particularly active as a member of the House of Commons industry
committee and as an advocate for the interests of small business
and for the research and development community.
Hugh's voyage through life, like that of so many Canadians, took
him from eastern Canada to central Canada, to western Canada and
then back to central Canada as a member of parliament.
He grew up in Antigonish, Nova Scotia in a family of five boys.
He obtained his undergraduate degrees in arts and education from
St. Francis Xavier University. Hugh then came to this city where
he obtained his master's degree in education from the University
of Ottawa.
He then moved west to pursue his career as a teacher. He taught
in the Edmonton Catholic school system for some 20 years. He was
recognized as teacher of the year for his devotion to teaching
high school students something about economics.
1520
In 1993 Hugh returned to Ottawa as the Reform member of
parliament representing the constituency of Edmonton—Strathcona,
a constituency which includes many students, faculty members and
employees at the University of Alberta.
I personally feel that one of the measures of the
accomplishments and progress of ourselves as human beings is what
the younger generation thinks of us. Perhaps that comes from
being a father of five children. Do we inspire confidence, hope
and aspirations on the part of younger people or do they see in
us particularly as we grow older a wet blanket, an obstacle or an
impediment to their dreams and aspirations?
Hugh Hanrahan had a gift for inspiring the confidence and hopes
of young people which in the final analysis is a greater tribute
to the positive aspects of his life than anything that I could
say.
It was Hugh's students, some of whom had yet to cast their first
ballot in a federal election, who persuaded him, their teacher,
to run for public office. It was Hugh's students and former
students who helped him win the Reform nomination in
Edmonton—Strathcona and formed the heart of his successful
election campaign.
Hugh was never happier in pursuing a public issue than when it
was related to the hopes, aspirations and success of young
people. It is no coincidence that when he retired from political
life because of ill health his constituents chose one of the
youngest candidates in the 1997 federal election to follow in his
footsteps as the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
On behalf of the official opposition, we pay tribute to our
former colleague, Hugh Hanrahan, today. We extend our heartfelt
sympathy to his wife Dianne, to his daughter Margaret Ann and his
four brothers. We thank them for encouraging Hugh to share his
life with young people and to share his life with us.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on
behalf of the government to offer tribute to the former MP from
Edmonton—Strathcona. Hugh Hanrahan was a fellow Edmontonian and
someone I got to know when we were both elected for the first
time to the House in 1993. In fact the points of coincidence
between Mr. Hanrahan and myself do not end there.
As the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out,
the University of Alberta was in Mr. Hanrahan's riding and I had
the opportunity and pleasure to teach at the University of
Alberta for over 13 years before becoming a member of the House.
Mr. Hanrahan and I on our frequent flights back and forth from
Edmonton to Ottawa often sat beside each other. We had the
opportunity to talk about our shared love and commitment and at
times concern for the University of Alberta.
The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition is quite right that
Mr. Hanrahan carried a very deep commitment to the University of
Alberta and the research and development and intellectual life of
that institution. He did all that he could to ensure that it was
nourished and fostered.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, Mr.
Hanrahan, like myself, was born in Nova Scotia. We then made our
way west. Mr. Hanrahan was born in Antigonish, Nova Scotia where
he earned degrees in both education and arts from St. Francis
Xavier or as Mr. Hanrahan would say, St. F. X. Later he obtained
a master's degree in economics from the University of Ottawa.
He did make his way west where he accepted a teaching position
first in Calgary. Soon afterward he moved to Edmonton where he
taught economics and earned a reputation in and out of the world
of education as a man of commitment and thoughtfulness.
Mr. Hanrahan spent over 20 years teaching in the Edmonton
Catholic school system. He was honoured as teacher of the year
in 1998 by the Alberta Foundation for Economic Education. Many
of his students have commented on how influential Mr. Hanrahan
was in their lives. I thought as a former teacher myself it was
very fitting that on the night of his election Mr. Hanrahan
commented on how influential those students had been on his life.
He acknowledged that it was through the encouragement of his
students that he actually for the first time seriously considered
running as a member of parliament. His lifelong advocacy of
fiscal restraint and reducing the national debt provided him with
a strong and obvious platform. His bid at federal politics was
successful.
1525
Among other duties he served on the industry committee where he
developed an expertise on small and medium size business and
research and development. Mr. Hanrahan worked diligently in the
service of his constituents until ill health required his
retirement from elected office.
Mr. Hanrahan was a religious man and one who found intellectual
stimulation and comfort from the works of philosophy, religion,
politics and history.
On behalf of the government, I am pleased to recognize the work
of Mr. Hanrahan and his commitment to the public service of this
country. We offer our deepest sympathy to his wife Dianne, his
daughter Margaret and other family and friends.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today we are
paying tribute to Hugh Hanrahan, who was the Reform Party member
for the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona between 1993 and 1997.
Hugh Hanrahan passed away on May 19. He was only 52.
Mr. Hanrahan was considered a thoughtful man with a penetrating
mind and a great ability to deepen the issues he believed in.
He had a BA and a bachelor's degree in education from St.
Francis Xavier University and a master's degree in education
from the University of Ottawa.
He taught economics at a Catholic school in Edmonton, where he
was known as a wonderful teacher. This was perfectly natural,
since teaching was a real passion for Hugh. His curiosity was
great and he never stopped learning, always wanting to think
more about things.
He won his election in 1993 in the riding of
Edmonton—Strathcona. He got involved in politics through, among
other things, the encouragement of his students who knew how
their teacher's interest in and concerns about tax administration
and problem of the national debt.
When he won, Mr. Hanrahan took time to warmly thank his students
for their encouragement.
He even mentioned at an event that for him one of the nicest
compliments he got as a teacher was that his students had
influenced the direction of his life.
That shows just how much he cared for and respected his
students.
My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I offer our most sincere
condolences to his wife Dianne, his daughter Margaret Ann, and
to all his family and friends.
The loss of someone dear is always very difficult to accept. The
only consolation lies in knowing that now he will be watching
over those he loves.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise on behalf of my leader, the member for Halifax, and
the New Democratic Party caucus to pay tribute to Hugh Hanrahan,
the former member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona. I was
very saddened to learn that Hugh had passed away at such a young
age, the age of 52.
We were both elected to the House of Commons in 1993. On
occasion we had the opportunity to talk about certain issues and
certain values that we shared. As a matter of fact we had the
opportunity because we sat at the far end of the House of Commons
where the Speaker could not keep track of us. We were able to
share our common experiences.
Mr. Hanrahan was a teacher for 18 years in the Catholic school
system in Edmonton. He taught social studies, economics and
psychology. He was such a good teacher and such a fine
gentleman. I could see why in his previous life before elected
politics he was honoured with the teacher of the year award in
1987-88 by the Alberta Foundation for Economic Education.
Mr. Hanrahan not only loved Canada and Alberta, he loved Nova
Scotia where he was born and educated. He often visited Nova
Scotia and would talk about his visits there.
1530
One of the things I wanted to raise with the House and his
family is the fact that we would talk about why we came to the
House of Commons. We also shared our various hopes and
aspirations about Canada, in particular western Canada.
It is my view that Mr. Hanrahan sought elected office because he
felt strongly about the good fiscal management that was necessary
for our country. He was concerned about the problems of the
national debt. He was also very concerned that we should be
focusing our energies on building Canada as opposed to tearing it
apart.
He was encouraged by young people to seek elected office. They
energized him in his job throughout his duties and career as a
member of parliament. He was somewhat discouraged and saddened
by the fact that he could not seek elected office for a second
term because of his illness. I shared his very serious thoughts
in that regard.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and my leader, I
wish to offer my very deepest sympathies to Mrs. Dianne Hanrahan,
their daughter Margaret Ann, his brothers and other family
members and friends.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I join
in sending our sympathy to Mrs. Hanrahan and their daughter
Margaret on the loss they have suffered in the passing of Hugh
Hanrahan.
From what others have said, particularly the Leader of the
Opposition and the Minister of Justice, it is very clear that the
community in Edmonton is poorer for the tragic early death of Mr.
Hanrahan. Yet it is very clear that in his short life he
achieved much.
As an educator, orator and member of the House of Commons, Mr.
Hanrahan served his constituents and his country proudly. He
received the accolades and the respect of his peers in each
capacity, and he served with dignity. This is not surprising for
he was a son of Antigonish and the product of St. Francis Xavier
University. His attachment to his Scottish and Irish ancestries
was worn with pride. He has now returned to the welcoming arms
of his beloved Nova Scotia.
We are grateful that Hugh Hanrahan was prepared to serve his
community and the House. The country is richer because he did
so. He served the public in a noble and dignified way. The loss
to his family and his country is immense. With all members of
his family, his party and this place, we mourn his loss.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Madam Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent
of the House to allow me to present a petition.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
seeking unanimous consent to present a petition. Is there
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
PETITIONS
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by my
constituents of Simcoe—Grey.
The petitioners call upon parliament to uphold and reinforce
section 163.4 of the Criminal Code making it illegal to possess
child pornography.
They also request that parliament use all resources available to
counteract the ruling of the Supreme Court of British Columbia
and once again to assure children all over Canada that the
Canadian government supports their right to be free from abuse
and exploitation.
I pay thanks and congratulations to Lisa Mooij, an energetic 14
year old who did all the research, organization and work on this
petition.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MARRIAGE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this motion arises out of the controversy that followed various
supreme court decisions and various other court decisions that
were intended to extend various benefits to same sex couples.
I really believe that the controversy is an empty controversy if
we as legislators apply ourselves to a few relatively easy
changes.
1535
I believe that the majority of Canadians believe in the
principle, in the rightness as described in our charter of
rights, of making sure all Canadians have equal access to
benefits and that they should not be discriminated against
because of sexual orientation.
I believe that over the last 20 years Canadians have come to
more and more recognize that homosexuality is something that is
given to us at birth, that it is not really an alternative
lifestyle. It is something that nature or God gives us. It is a
flaw, perhaps, or an abnormality. I should say there is nothing
unnatural about an abnormality because every one of us is born
with differences, weaknesses or strengths.
I think all of us as Canadians believe that we should not
discriminate against people merely because they are different
from the norm. Indeed homosexual couples and homosexual
individuals I think are generally acknowledged to have
contributed mightily to the creative life in any country or any
community to which they belong.
That having been said, I think we can fix this situation by a
few simple legislated definitions. The first should be to
legislate a definition of marriage that means legally that
marriage is a union between opposite sex couples. Second, we
should legislate a definition of spouse.
We have no choice but to connect spouse with the idea of
marriage because the dictionary defines spouse as husband and
wife, and only the courts can play Samuel Johnson at their whim
and redefine language whenever they please. We as legislators
have to respect language in both English and French and make sure
that we are using current language and using words as they are
intended to be used.
Then what we should do is create a new definition and call it
dependent partner. We define dependent partner as an adult who
is in an emotionally dependent relationship with another person
leading to material dependency. We can extend that definition to
say that it involves siblings, that it involves parent and child,
or that it involves people of the same sex who are in a physical
relationship with one another.
Once we do that then the rest should fall in place. As long as
we set aside the fear associated with defining same sex couples
as being married, as having the right to adopt children or as
eroding the sanctity of marriage, I think the vast majority of
Canadians, whether they are very religious or not very religious,
will join with this parliament in agreeing that we should make
sure all people who are in an emotionally dependent relationship
should have equal access to benefits. The advantage to this is
that we take, for the most part, sex out of the definition.
I certainly believe, as a former Liberal prime minister once
said, that parliament has no business in the bedrooms of the
nation. I believe that is so. We should be talking about
dependent relationships, not sexual relationships.
I think this is an easy solution. We should think about it over
the summer. I am glad the Reform Party put this motion forward
today because we are coming to the end of this sitting and we
need to reflect on this issue so we can easily resolve it when
the fall comes.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member's comments in support of the Reform
motion. The more I hear of this debate and the more I hear some
members speak and where they are coming from, I actually get very
scared about what is an obsession with the issue.
Now we hear from the hon. member that he wants not only to
define marriage as he sees it but also to define spouse as it
relates to marriage. I have to question what right do I, or does
the member or anyone else, have to do that.
People who live together may define themselves as or may
self-identify as spouses. They may be in a common law
relationship as man and woman. They may be of the same sex.
1540
I find quite frightening the way this debate is going in terms
of hearing on one hand that the state has no business in the
bedrooms of the nation, which the member has so eloquently called
forward from the past. Yet the very motion and debate that is
taking place would do exactly that. It would enforce the state
into people's private lives and define people's relationships.
For what reason do we need to do that? Who is this threatening?
Who is being threatened by people's choice and decision about
how they live if it is not causing harm to other people?
I am genuinely asking that question because I have difficulty
understanding for what reason the member believes the state
should be making this enforcement in terms of a definition not
only of marriage but now of spouse. What will be next? Will we
define the family?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, we have just heard an
example of the rhetoric of intolerance. It is the proper place
of this place to define things in law. That is our job. That is
what we are here to do. It is my right. I was elected by my
constituents to do exactly that.
If the member had been here when I spoke earlier, she would have
heard me say that the danger, and why we have to intervene and
make these definitions, is that if we do not the courts are
likely to extinguish the rights of children.
I am not sure in my conscience that, all things being equal, a
child should have a homosexual couple as parents. I am willing
to acknowledge that homosexual parents can be good parents. I am
willing to give the officials the discretion to make them
parents. However I am not willing to give them the right of
being parents because, in doing so, we extinguish the rights of
children. I cannot do that. It is my place to define the law to
make sure that the rights of children are protected.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I commend the member for Wentworth—Burlington on his
eloquent remarks.
I point to the comments of the attorney general this morning who
asked in this place why we should be using the already limited
time of the House to debate a motion on which there will be no
fundamental disagreement inside or outside the House. I raise
this point because the member indicated he thought this was a
worthwhile motion, as do I.
Will he not agree with me that we have heard members of the
House disagree fundamentally with the principle stated in the
motion? I do not raise this as a partisan point but rather to
demonstrate that the governing party of Canada, and not the
government, strongly urges the federal government to recognize
same sex marriages in the same way as opposite marriages in its
distribution of benefits.
Will the hon. member recognize that this is a live issue, that
there is, contrary to what the attorney general said, fundamental
disagreement about it?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I believe the vast
majority of us agree that benefits should be extended to same sex
couples. The issue here is simply the danger of allowing
marriage to be defined as a same sex relationship. Not only does
that go against a thousand years of tradition in law, the church,
language and every other thing, but there is a serious danger to
the rights of children.
That being said, on this side there is great diversity of
opinion and great freedom to express opinion. If an attorney
general somewhere or the solicitor general or the justice
minister expresses himself or herself in the House, I still have
the privilege of expressing myself in my way.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am very
honoured to enter into debate on the very important question of
the definition of marriage, the definition of spouse, and the
upholding of the family.
I will bring a perspective to the debate which is just a little
different from most of those that have been expressed, although
there has been a current of what I will say through many of the
speeches we have heard so far today.
I think of marriage and family in a very special way. I made
reference in a member's statement today to the fact that this
summer my wife and I will been married for 38 years.
I think that one of our friends had it right when she said at our
37th anniversary “Betty deserves a medal”. That was probably
true. I try to be a loving and caring husband. However, as do
all husbands and all spouses, we sometimes fall just a little
short of the mark, even the one we would set for ourselves and
our spouses.
1545
We have a very solid family relationship based on marriage. To
me it goes somewhat beyond the verbal definition.
One of the reasons I am so supportive of this motion is because
we are talking about words. We are talking about language.
Unless we use words which we understand to have a common meaning
it makes communication very difficult. We all know that over
time language changes. All one has to do is read a bit of
Shakespeare to realize that the English usage a scant 150 or 200
years ago was somewhat different in many areas from what it is
now. Even in my own lifetime I have seen some changes in the
language.
When I was a young man “do not speed” meant not to go faster
than the prescribed limit on the highway. The word speed had
quite a different connotation when I was a young man in the
hippie era. I remember in my day when “keep off the grass”
meant not to go on the neighbour's lawn. Now keep off the grass
may have something to do with something quite different.
I suppose I should hesitate to use this spectacular example, yet
it is a real example so I will use it. We had a motto in grade
eight. I still remember it well. Our teacher and the school
principal were trying to teach us to make sure that we were
diligent in our work. The reward for doing good work was to have
enjoyment for it afterward. Our school motto was “First we work
and then we play because that is the way to be happy and gay”.
In my generation the word simply meant carefree, happy and
without worry. Now the word gay has a fairly different
connotation because it has been pre-empted by the homosexual
community. Quite often when I visit high schools and I talk
about that grade eight school motto it evokes a good chuckle
because of the change in the meaning of the word. That happens
in the English language.
What we are concerned about is not only the legality of it but
the deeper meaning. The reason for this motion today is that we
want to able to give the courts a very clear message of what our
meaning of the word marriage is and what the definition is in
terms of what the legal implications are. As I said in my
preamble, to me the meaning of marriage is very deep.
On July 15, 1961 my wife and I stood in front of a minister at a
church. We expressed our vows to each other. I still remember
most of them. I do not know if I could still quote them
verbatim; however, they had to do with being true to each other,
to cling to each other and to no other until death do us part.
That was the vow that we made. It was made not only to each
other in the presence of witnesses, it was also made very
profoundly in the presence of God.
I am here today to share this aspect of a definition of
marriage. For many ions of time it has meant the union of a man
and a woman. To me it is not only a relationship or that my wife
and I are living under the same roof and sharing expenses, it is
much more than that. It is a deeply meaningful, spiritual
relationship under God, with an oath that we gave to him as well
as to each other.
I remember my grandparents. They passed away a number of years
ago. We celebrated their 25th when I was a little kid. I do not
even remember that.
However, I do remember celebrating their 50th, their 60th and
their 65th. Grandfather died when he was 88, in their 67th year
of marriage. That is when this part of the vow came into play
for them: “Till death do us part”.
1550
My own parents have celebrated their anniversaries over the
years and I certainly remember their 25th, 50th and 60th. Lord
willing, they will be celebrating their 65th next year in the
millennium year. That is their millennium project. They are
still very healthy and we are very grateful for that. They too
have had a lifelong, deep, monogamous, faithful relationship with
each other. There is a deeply held meaning in the word marriage,
a union between a man and a woman for life. As I have said, my
wife and I share that same meaning.
I do not know whether we are ready in this country to start
fooling around with a definition that is so deeply meaningful to
so many Canadians. I am quite convinced that the definition I
hold, which adds that further dimension to marriage, is one that
is held by the majority of Canadians; not only by those of the
Christian faith, but also by those of other faiths. I think of
the Sikhs, the Muslims, the Hindus. They all have a relationship
of marriage which they clearly understand to be the union of a
man and a woman. We err terribly by even suggesting that
possibly some court could change that definition.
I am here today to declare that I am going to very solidly,
proudly and out of a deep sense of duty and obligation vote in
favour of the motion, and not because it is immediately a threat.
The Minister of Justice has told us that. Some of my colleagues
have already quoted words which she has used both verbally and in
response to letters from constituents and in response to
petitions. The Liberals have no intention of changing the
definition of marriage from that which is currently in use, it
being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others. That is the current definition. I believe that they
have no intention of changing it.
Why do we bring this motion? It is very simple. We want to
send a loud and extremely clear message, not only to the Canadian
people but also to the courts of this country, that the will of
the people as expressed in this democracy is that the definition
should remain unaltered.
Think of the word “spouse”. What can spouse mean other than
the wife of a husband or the husband of a wife? The courts are
starting to change the word “spouse”. Even in this House we
have had some bills like Bill C-78, which in its obscure parts
refers to anybody in a conjugal relationship.
Marriage keeps the government out of our bedrooms because it is
a valid relationship which stands on its own without inspectors.
We err when we go in the direction of changing the definition of
spouse, the definition of marriage and, indeed, the very
definition of love and lifelong commitment.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to our colleague from the Reform Party giving examples
of the changing meaning of words throughout history, and he is
absolutely right. His examples were very pertinent. He also
said it was the role of parliament to give a legal value to
words and to their profound meaning.
1555
Listening to the hon. member, it would appear that only married
heterosexual spouses forming a family with children are worthy
and capable of fidelity, love, mutual support and sharing.
I have a question for him: Does he believe that words are not
the only things that can evolve over time, but that attitudes
could as well?
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, we are really not talking
about other kinds of relationships today. There is no doubt that
they exist. There is no doubt that people have remained close
friends and, as some would say, conjugal friends. I do not like
the word in that context, but there it is. Obviously that
happens. That is not what we are talking about.
I am talking about the preservation of the language, of the use
of the term, what it means as a deep meaning, and this one is the
union of a man and a woman in marriage. I do not really think
that we are talking about the other one. That may occur and that
is a subject for another day.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is the day on which we are having our last debate
on the expenditure of over $150 billion that we will have to vote
on later tonight, much later tonight probably. I am totally
mystified as to why we have a motion that is a real bogeyman
before us today.
The motion makes specific reference to court decisions and is
seeking to have parliament confirm the idea of marriage. I would
ask the member opposite if he is aware of one court decision that
has anything to do with changing, modifying, even questioning the
definition of marriage, which is well established in common law,
or if he is aware of any court decision that has anything to do
with changing the definition of family. The only one I am aware
of is a decision at the trial court level which says very
specifically that section 15 of the charter cannot be used to
redefine marriage.
Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, in answering the question of
why we are using one of the last days of parliament on this
issue, it is because of the fact that things roll on when
parliament is not in session. I believe that it is timely for us
to give a very, very strong and clear message to the courts.
It is true that many of these decisions have been coming down at
lower court levels and so far the upper court has upheld them.
However, all of the courts are saying to us that they want our
guidance. They have said “unless the court speaks”. Even in
the most recent M and H decision I believe there was an
indication that the court wanted a clear indication from
parliament as to the direction it should be taking.
Reform members today are using this as our opportunity to do
what the government should have done a long time ago, and that is
to have a debate and a vote and establish beyond all shadow of a
doubt what actually is required.
We have some instances where the courts have actually asked for
this. I have several examples here. They indicate, for example
in the Rosenberg decision, that the words referring to the
spouse, at any time, of a taxpayer, include the person of the
opposite sex or the same sex. They are changing the definition
of spouse. As I said in my speech, what can spouse in the
context of marriage possibly mean other than the husband of the
wife or the wife of the husband?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I must say that I share the mystification of the deputy
whip of the government when she said it is a mystery why we have
to talk about this. I never imagined when I was elected six
years ago that I would ever be in the House of Commons debating
this issue, the fact that we need to affirm the meaning and the
cornerstone policy of marriage in our country.
I think most hon. members have the same feeling yet here we are.
1600
The Prime Minister in October 1996 said that marriage is a
contract between two individuals according to the Canadian
tradition of different sexes to share a life together. A
spokesman for the justice department in January this year said
common law says that marriage is a union between a man and a
woman and that is the way it will stay.
I think a lot of us had thought, hoped and believed that this
kind of a debate about the meaning of marriage in Canada would be
totally unnecessary. Yet as many of my colleagues and others
have stated here today, there is a growing uncertainty and
concern on the part of citizens of our country about this seeming
bedrock concept of Canadian society.
The recent redefinition of spouse by the supreme court is one of
the things causing this unease. Of course a spouse is a part of
a marriage. Now the courts have said that a spouse is a part of
other kinds of relationships as well. In its decision the court
said that this ruling that redefines spouse “has nothing to do
with marriage per se”. It also said “this appeal does not
challenge traditional conceptions of marriage”.
There have been moves in other parts of the world to re-examine
this issue. In 1996 the American Congress passed what is called
the defence of marriage act. As the House knows, issues are very
closely linked in our two countries and in other countries as
well.
That act did two things. First, it allowed states not to honour
same sex marriages even if such marriages were allowed in other
states. Second, the law defined for the federal code that
marriage “means only a legal union between one man and one woman
as husband and wife”. Interestingly enough, shortly after the
act was passed, the state of Hawaii had a court decision which
ruled that forbidding same sex marriages violated Hawaii's
constitution.
There are reasons for Canadians to feel some unease about this
issue. In the interventions by some members of the New
Democratic Party today there is some hostility toward this
cornerstone definition of public policy.
The unease of Canadian citizens has been demonstrated in some of
the petitions filed in the House. I would like to read the
wording of the petitions that have been filed. Eighty-four
members of parliament have stood up to present this petition:
Whereas the majority of Canadians understand the concept of
marriage as only the voluntary union of a single (that is,
unmarried) male and a single (that is, unmarried), female;
And 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;
Therefore your petitioners pray that parliament enact
legislation...so as to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered into between a single male and a single female.
In this petition we see the anxiety of thousands of Canadians
who took the time to sign and submit petitions to parliament.
We also see that the courts are requesting leadership by
lawmakers on key public policy issues such as this. There is a
clear precedent that the courts are prepared to fill in any
blanks in respect of these kinds of issues, and sometimes even to
rewrite our laws.
1605
We have for example a quote from an article in the Financial
Post where a financial planner observes:
—the law, whether by statute or judiciary, is slowly but surely
transforming the notion of “family”...the Egan case said...the
definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act, which requires
couples to be of the opposite sex, contravenes the Charter of
Rights. But the contravention was saved by the holding...that
the discrimination is acceptable in a free and democratic
society.
There was one dissenting judge even on that exception. The
commentator went on to say:
We don't believe that such a change is likely in the foreseeable
future and we are certainly not about to embark upon a campaign
for change. On the other hand, we do recognize that societal
norms are changing and that even if the politicians are super
cautious, a goodly part of the judiciary does not seem to be
intimidated.
When there is commentary like that, our citizens are concerned.
They wonder what is going to happen.
There is also the matter of Bill C-78 wherein the provisions of
the public service pension act were extended to same sex couples.
This provision of the bill caused real anxiety not only in the
public but there was some strong reaction by members of the
House.
There was the perception that the government was changing some
of the notions and the definitions of relationships in our
society by stealth. I do not want to be unkind but I think that
was the impression a lot of members of the House got, that buried
deep in these big bills were going to be the kind of changes to
the whole notions and constructs of our society that would not be
acceptable to many Canadians.
When we see that courts have said that a couple is a couple is a
couple and that spouse is not limited to marriage partner, in the
long run people ask themselves, will the distinction between a
union to procreate and nurture children and all other types of
relationships be lost?
This leads me to the purpose of bringing forward this motion
today is to give us as members of parliament the opportunity to
say that we are determined to be vigilant in regard to these very
key elements of our social make-up and that we mean business about
ensuring the stability of this key social construct. If there is
doubt, let us clear it up. If it takes a day of debate to do
that, then I think it is a very worthwhile day of debate.
There are a number of reasons the institution of marriage is
important. In the book It Takes Two: The Family in Law and
Finance by Allen and Richards it is stated:
Marriage is an efficient institution. Were there a more
efficient means to raise children, marriage would not have lasted
over the millennia as the primary form of organization for
procreation and social structure. Raising children, not just
providing for them physically but embodying them with what is
good and productive, is a complicated business. Historically,
the family has been a type of “firm” that has provided parents
with proper incentives to see the job through.
Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as a relationship in
which there are many stakeholders: children, parents, the church
and the state. Ours may be a more secular (society) but that
does not absolve us from collectively caring about the success of
marriage as an institution.
I appreciate that all members of the House are prepared to show
leadership on this important issue.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to take a few moments to add my voice to this
debate, seeing that there is not time for me to participate in
the debate because everyone wishes to speak to the motion.
1610
The hon. member in her opening statement indicated how she
thought we would never be here discussing this issue. I
empathize with what she is saying, but I say to the member how
fortunate we are to be able to have this debate so that we can
alleviate some of this anxiety and the perceptions she also
referred to.
When we are elected, constituents from our respective ridings
say to us that we are here in Ottawa to be their voice. I firmly
believe this and I am sure every hon. member in the House
believes this.
Here we are today in this most unique situation to speak on
behalf of people like Dolina and Bruce Smith from my riding, Mr.
and Mrs. Guest, Roxanne James and so many others who have sent us
their comments. In today's debate and the vote we can express
what our constituents are saying. I thank the members who have
participated.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I agree with the
member. The intent of the motion is not to be partisan. The
intent of the motion is to give all of us an opportunity to make
it crystal clear what parliament means when we refer to marriage.
It is to provide a means for parliamentarians from all parties
to remove any doubt about our position on the value and meaning
of marriage to this country and to this state. We appreciate the
fact that lawmakers from all parties are participating and are
making affirmations on this very important point.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I commend my colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill for her
remarks and the remarks of members opposite on this subject.
I agree with the hon. member that this is not a motion brought
forward in the spirit of partisanship but as the attorney general
suggested, hopefully, everybody would be able to support it. I
think we have seen today at least from one party and perhaps from
some government members that is not the case, but it really does
raise a question in my mind.
I read the motion and it simply says that parliament affirm that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, precisely the government's stated
and ongoing policy. Then I looked at the talking points
distributed to members of the Liberal caucus, prepared I think by
Kevin Bosch at their research unit which among other things
characterizes this motion as being “fearmongering, extremist,
malicious, divisive, intolerant, meanspirited, singling out and
demeaning groups” et cetera.
Could the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill comment on what she
feels about partisan, hot button, extremist politics like this
being employed on what should be a non-partisan issue of
importance to all Canadian families?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the
injudicious characterization of this debate is confined to one
researcher for the Liberals.
I have heard from many of my colleagues opposite that they feel
this is an important debate. It is a debate that is meaningful
and positive for Canadians. It gives an opportunity to show true
leadership as we ought to as the elected representatives of the
people and, as one of my colleagues just said, as the voice of
the people of Canada.
It saddens me to see that grubby partisan politics have to
intrude even in such a deep-seated and meaningful issue in our
country, but I suppose that is the nature of politics. I do
appreciate the fact that although some researchers may get
carried away members of the House show more judiciousness and
more good sense than that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this
issue.
I should say to the member for Calgary Southeast that what he
wrote out is generally a stamp that we reserve for all the Reform
Party motions that come across the floor. Usually they would fit
into that category. We were always writing it out in longhand
and figured it was probably more appropriate that we just get a
stamp to use.
Today is an exception because the motion that is before us will
find a lot of support on this side of the House. It will
certainly find support from me, and I am sure that many of my
colleagues who have already spoken and who will finish out this
debate will also support it.
1615
I take the opposite view. I do not regret or bemoan the fact
that we are taking what amounts to an expensive legislative day
in keeping the House going to debate this. I thank the Reform
Party for giving us the opportunity to tell our constituents
exactly how we feel about the issue of marriage, family and what
makes the country strong. It is a great opportunity for us to do
that and I truly do thank the members opposite.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Charleswood St.
James—Assiniboia.
I want to add that the information is clear. While I believe
that we have been given the opportunity to get our message
across, the Reform Party knows that the government remains
committed and has given no signal and no indication that there
will be a change in its support of Canadian families. There are
no plans to legislate a change in the definition of the term
marriage.
Let us go back to where that comes from. 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, a case
dealing with the legal invalidity of polygamy. This case has
been applied consistently in Canada with the result that no
marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex. It would
be void ab initio, which means from the beginning. This is clear.
No jurisdiction worldwide differs in that particular area, even
though there may be some European or Scandinavian countries that
do allow same sex partners to register their relationships.
I would be very interested to hear the position of the Reform
Party when the province of Alberta, which seems to be leading the
charge on this, comes out with a plan—and many of these members
of course are from that province—that would allow same sex
partners to register an interdependency on one another and
thereby have access to certain benefit plans such as survivor
rights or pension rights. It is actually an interesting solution
to the problem for those of us who recognize marriage as a union
between a man and a woman and no one else.
It is a solution because I was in the province of Ontario when
we had the debate over whether or not we would extend rights to
same sex couples for benefits. Many major corporations in the
country have already done that and are way ahead of government.
We had a very acrimonious debate on the floor of the legislature
in Ontario. The galleries were filled with people who were
extremely upset. When the debate was over and we voted against
extending same sex benefits, the place was literally taken over
by a mob.
An hon. member: How did you vote?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I voted against it. It was an
extremely emotional, high strung atmosphere and a very
unsatisfactory resolution to the particular problem.
The fact remains that time moves on and what people are really
concerned about is the protection of the family. We do not lose
rights based on our sexuality or who we are having sex with. We
also, in my view, should not gain rights in that regard. It
should not be a defining principle.
As Prime Minister Trudeau said, we have no business in the
bedrooms of the nation, so why would we be using that as some
kind of measuring stick to determine whether or not someone has
access to some particular right?
What I like about the Alberta solution, although I do not know
the cost of it and I am sure that is being looked at, is that it
de-sexualizes the whole issue.
1620
I heard a gay rights lawyer say that if we simply adopt this
without looking at the nuances and the difficulties, we could
have a grandmother declare that a three year old grandson is now
economically dependent and therefore subject to the survivor
benefits. The three year old would then get the survivor benefit
when the grandmother passes on. This would throw pension plans
so dramatically out of whack that no one would be able to afford
them. We would be unable to determine the level of premium we
should set. I understand that there are some problems.
I believe we should recognize that this is not about homophobia.
This is about recognizing the strength of what makes the country
good and what makes the country strong. It is the family. I
would doubt that there are very many people, even gay members of
parliament, who would disagree that family is the key to the
strength of the future of the nation. My colleague for
Mississauga South used the term “a line in the sand”. I would
use “thin edge of the wedge”. This is ultimately what the
debate is all about.
I have a quote by David Corbett of the Foundation for Equal
Families. He said:
Nobody has proposed a solution that would have marriage as an
institution available to same sex couples. It is not constructive
contribution to the debate and it is certainly premature.
What does that tell us? It tells me that we are not going to do
it at this time because it will upset the apple cart. We will
move along an inch at a time until we can make more ground. Let
us call it for what it is. The gay rights activists absolutely
want to have same sex marriages recognized. They may say they do
not, but I honestly believe they do.
Does that mean we have to get homophobic and panicky? I do not
think so. I think it means that in this country, the country
over which we have the domain as parliamentarians, we will only
recognize, as our common law states, that a marriage is two
people of the opposite sex and excludes anyone else. This is
common sense to me. I do not think we have to have a knee-jerk
reaction to it.
I say to those in the gay community that I have no problem with
their right to not be discriminated again in terms of housing,
employment, education, equal opportunity, jobs within the
government, procurement or whatever. We should not discriminate
against them based on their sexuality. However, they have no
right to claim that they have expanded rights based on their
sexuality. As far as I am concerned, it cuts both ways.
One of the things I find most fascinating about being in this
place, especially when many of my esteemed colleagues prior to
arriving here made their living in pursuit of the law or defence
of the law in one way or another, is when the debate indicates
that we should let this particular issue go through the courts
because they will adjudicate and make the decision. However, on
this particular issue we cannot have the courts make that
decision because we are parliament, we are the ultimate and we
have the right to tell them what to do.
We have a judicial system that is one of the finest in the world
and supported with a parliamentary democracy that is absolutely
one of the finest in the world. What we need to do in all cases
is to make sure that those two systems work in balance; where
parliamentarians can say what it is they want to have happen in
terms of the law, but that the judicial system must be available
without interference from politicians to interpret that law, be
it the charter of rights or any other individual law.
I support the family. I support men and women being married. I
believe they are the only two who can be spouses. The government
supports that and we will stand behind that regardless of any
attempts to portray us in any other light.
1625
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague has touched on many of the concerns.
I have a very brief question for him. Bill C-78 provides for
benefits based on a conjugal relationship. Pierre Elliott
Trudeau told us that the state has no business in the bedrooms of
the nation and took the state out of the bedrooms of the nation
back then. I believe that Bill C-78 has put us right back into
the bedrooms of the nation. In order to secure the benefits as
provided for by Bill C-78, we have to prove a sexual
relationship. I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment
on that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, as in many cases in
this world of politics, there are issues and bills that have some
difficulties.
The real value of Bill C-78 for this government was the fact
that we were able access some $30 billion in capital funds that
belonged to the taxpayers. The position of the Reform Party is
that we should close our eyes, draw the wheels of government to a
close and not get that money back into the hands of the taxpayer.
That is why we did Bill C-78. I voted for Bill C-78 and would
again.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
do not know if the hon. member is on the MPs' hockey team, but if
he is he should get the best skating award. He knew how to skate
right away from that question. I am not going to let him get
away with it.
We heard him announce that the great liberal libertarian
principle of the state does not belong in the bedrooms of the
nation, with which I concur.
The fiscal impact of Bill C-78 aside, does he not agree—and we
may be dealing with legislation of this nature that is more
expanded in the fall when we reconvene—that benefits provided
ought not to be provided on the basis of sexual behaviour but on
some other characteristics, that is, those of dependency? Can he
comment on that?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, as I said during my
speech, I do not believe that people should get rights or lose
rights based on their sexuality.
What I have mentioned is that I like the balance that I see. I
think our other deputy speaker, a member from Alberta, has put a
paper out as well. The Alberta government is dealing with an
issue that I believe we will be looking at it; that is, if they
do declare dependency economically and pay a family premium. I do
not think that two people can live together, declare that they
want to share benefits and then continue to pay a single premium.
There may be a requirement to adjust those premiums and create a
third category which could be a declared an interdependency
category for setting the premiums.
Clearly, pensions, survivor benefits and all of those things are
based on the long range forecast by the economic professionals.
They are not based on sexuality but on hard dollars and cents.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to try this question one more time.
In Bill C-78 benefits are conferred because of a conjugal
relationship. The member in his speech clearly said he was
against that. Would he state plainly for the record whether he
was for or against that portion of Bill C-78?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Madam Speaker, I have made it very
clear that I believe that benefits, in any particular situation,
should be based on the premiums that are paid. If we can adopt a
situation where we can register dependency, and perhaps establish
a new level premium, then perhaps we could do that.
The red herring that the members opposite continue to bring up
with regard to Bill C-78 is nothing more than that, and they know
that. They also know that there are numerous government bills
that will be brought onto the floor of this place that are going
to involve the same kind of issue. That is why the government is
looking at it and we believe it is necessary.
Having said that, in spite of the attempts by the members
opposite to throw me off, I actually, for the first time in my
two years-plus in this place, support an idea put forward by the
Reform Party and it frightens the heck out of me.
1630
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the
debate this afternoon because I take the subject matter very
seriously. Ultimately we are talking about minority rights. In
a pluralist society of the kind that exists in Canada we have to
take the matter very seriously and we have to tread very
carefully.
While I truly question the motive of the Reform Party in putting
forward the motion on the parliamentary calendar for today, I
have no trouble whatsoever in supporting it. I will do exactly
that later tonight and perhaps I will use some of my time to
explain why.
I do not have any trouble supporting the institution of
marriage. I consider it an essential part of the bedrock of
society. Our society is founded upon the institution of
marriage, and I cannot imagine civilization being without it as
we know it.
I have some experience inside the institution of marriage. I
was first married more than 39 years ago. I consider myself to
be one of the luckiest men on the face of the earth. I have what
I think is the perfect wife and perfect mate. I thank God every
day that she came into my life many years ago.
Marriage is extremely important. We as parliamentarians have a
duty to nurture and to support the institution of marriage. If
we can do that in some small way through this kind of debate in
the House of Commons, so much the better.
With those few words in support of the institution of marriage,
I am more than happy to support the motion brought forward by the
Reform Party.
Why do I question the motives of the Reform Party in bringing
forward the motion? I question the motives of the official
opposition because on this matter, which has to do not so much
with marriage but with gays and lesbians, the Reform Party
established a certain fact a long time ago, that it is very good
at the business of scaremongering.
When it comes to minority rights relating to gays and lesbians,
the Reform Party cannot think of anything better to do than to
spread fear where very little fear exists. I think it was the
member for Wentworth—Burlington who described the issue as an
empty controversy. It is just that, an empty controversy.
I am not aware of anyone who is rushing around, pushing and
advocating for some sweeping change in the definition of
marriage. Maybe the Reform Party is. Maybe it is the only one,
but I certainly do not hear it from anyone whom I would consider
either credible or in large numbers.
The justice minister, speaking in the House this morning on
behalf of the government, said that the government was not
interested at all in changing the definition of marriage. I do
not know of any significant group in the country that is
demanding a change in the definition of marriage. There may be a
few; there may be a few gays and lesbians around but I do not
think they are in large numbers.
1635
At this particular time in the debate I think gays and lesbians
are far more interested in other issues connected with this
matter, especially when it comes to equal benefits. There may be
a few but I think it is an insignificant number. It certainly is
not the kind of number that would warrant scaremongering,
spreading fear by the Reform Party.
Are the courts in the country demanding that parliamentarians
change the definition of marriage? I do not see that. I have
read a number of judgments and, yes, they are pushing us with
respect to providing certain benefits and to removing certain
discriminatory practices. However I am not aware of any court
that is saying that parliamentarians have to change the
definition of marriage, that we have to change the law so that a
man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman. I do not see
that at all.
The Reform Party is out in front leading the charge: the roof
will fall in and we will face terrible changes. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
It reminds me of the Reform Party on the issue of a carbon tax.
What is the only party in the country that talks about a carbon
tax? As far as I know it is not the Liberal Party. I do not
know anybody in the Liberal Party who wants a carbon tax. I
cannot speak for the Conservatives, but I do not think they are
leading the way in calling for a carbon tax. I do not think the
New Democrats are and I do not think the Bloc is. Nobody except
the Reform Party talks about a carbon tax. The reason it talks
about it is that it is in its interest to spread fear. It is
called fearmongering. It is the same on this issue.
There have been decisions by judges, by courts, which in effect
have said that gays and lesbians are treated with less respect
than they deserve and that there are discriminatory laws, rules,
and regulations in the country which ought to be removed. Slowly
but surely that is where we as politicians and as institutions
across the country are going. Those discriminatory practices are
being stopped.
I am not aware of anyone saying that in the whole process we
have to change the definition of marriage. As far as I know, the
definition of marriage is a couple of opposite sex living
together, the union of a man and a woman, and that is the way it
will be. I do not know what it will be like 100 years from now
or 300 years from now. We will all be long gone. However, for
the time being I do not think there will be any change
whatsoever.
When I listen to Reform Party spokespeople, the one thing I
always listen for is whether they have respect for minorities,
particularly minorities like gays and lesbians who perhaps face
discrimination on a daily basis. We are really talking about
tolerance.
Most Canadians are heterosexual. I do not know what the number
is. Perhaps it is 98% or 99%. Most Canadians are married. They
form a huge majority. It does not take much strength or courage
to defend the majority, but it does take a bit more strength to
defend the minorities, especially those who may face
discrimination.
Members should go through Hansard tomorrow and look for
the tolerance that comes from the Reform Party and look for the
respect it would afford gays and lesbians. They will find very
little, if any, evidence of that, which says a lot about that
party.
1640
Canadians know that it is a party of intolerance, that it is a
party that does not care about certain people. A party like that
will never govern the country. Thank God for that.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the bitter, partisan diatribe
of the member from Winnipeg and to listen to his employing hot
bottom, divisive politics, extremist rhetorical tactics to create
partisan division on what should be an issue of some unanimity,
as he indicated at the outset of his remarks.
He suggested that one could read in the remarks made by members
of my party intolerant comments. I have not heard anything of
that nature. The motion today is very simple. I will read it
into the record. Perhaps the member has not read it:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
If the member opposite could identify what he finds offensive in
the motion, I would be edified.
He also suggests that there is unanimity on this definition,
that no one disagrees with it. He is also contradicting members
of his own party who have told us that this is a live issue. The
member from Mississauga who just spoke quoted Mr. Corbett from
the Coalition for Equal Families who said that it was premature
at this time to address this issue. The member from Mississauga
pointed out that its “prematurity” implies that it is an issue
the foundation will be pushing, the change of the definition of
marriage, at some point in the future.
The member from Winnipeg is contradicting the remarks of many of
his colleagues today who have said that this is very much an
important issue.
I would once more point to the policy adopted while I was there
as an observer at the last policy convention of the Liberal Party
of Canada, where the party strongly urged the federal government
to recognize same sex marriages in the same way that it
recognizes opposite marriages.
How can the hon. member from Winnipeg say that this is a red
herring and not a real issue and that the opposition is
fearmongering when in fact his own party has declared this as
party policy?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to
those unfounded charges. There is nothing particularly wrong
with the motion as it reads. There is nothing particularly
offensive about it. It is about marriage. All of us in the
House support marriage. We support the current definition of
marriage. That is not a problem.
I referred to the Reform Party as an intolerant bunch and I will
not back off from that. It is not so much what its members have
said in today's debate. It is what they have left out. It is
what is absent. It is what they have not said.
Even though the motion speaks of marriage and the definition of
marriage, it is as much about gays and lesbians as anything. I
noticed in their speeches a lack of respect, common garden
variety respect, for a minority group, a group of people who
deserve our respect and our protection, people who deserve equal
treatment before the law.
If my friend from Calgary reads the resolution that was passed
by the Liberal Party of Canada, he will see that it is not
calling for a change in the definition of marriage. It is simply
talking about equal treatment when it comes to the provision of
benefits. The operative word is benefits.
The courts in many ways have already said that. The courts have
simply said that when it comes to benefits we will have to treat
them as well as we treat anyone else. That is all the resolution
is talking about. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, we are finally getting
to the bottom of it with this hon. member. He says the courts
have already changed the definition. I will read from the
resolution:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the
federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same
way that it recognizes opposite marriages—
1645
How can the hon. member stand in his place and deny that this is
the policy of his party and it, therefore, is very much a live
matter for public policy debate and for us as parliamentarians?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, it is pretty difficult
to carry on a debate with an hon. member who deliberately twists
facts. He has just said that the courts were demanding a change
in the definition of marriage. No such thing exists. It is the
same thing with the Liberal Party motion. It does not demand a
change in the definition of marriage.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
find it rather unfortunate that we would even have to debate the
motion that is before the House today, because it is a
straightforward and common sense motion. It is rather
bewildering that anyone would oppose it, yet that is the case.
I will begin by reading the motion we are debating in the House
today. The Reform Party motion put forward for debate today
reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
The motion is very clear, unambiguous and straightforward, and
although one would tend to think that support for it would be a
given, and that it would be unanimous, that is not the case at
all. Before I explain why that is, I would like to commend the
Reform member for Calgary Centre who moved this motion.
As the House knows, the hon. member is our family values and
family issues critic. He has worked tirelessly on behalf, not
only of the Reform Party, but on behalf of all Canadian families
to defend the rights and traditional values of families.
For example, earlier this year a court decision in British
Columbia ruled that possession of child pornography was legal.
It was under the leadership of the hon. member for Calgary Centre
that the Reform Party led a motion in the House calling on the
government to invoke the notwithstanding clause and override that
decision to make it very clear that the Parliament of Canada does
not accept that child pornography is something that should be
legally possessed. Of course, that motion was defeated by the
Liberals, unfortunately.
Also earlier this year, when the issue of tax fairness for
families arose in the House, it was under the guidance of the
hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Reform Party led a
spirited debate urging the government to remove tax unfairness
against families with children. That also was unsuccessful.
I would like to commend not only the hon. member for Calgary
Centre but his staff for the excellent work they do on behalf of
the Reform Party in promoting our family values agenda and on
behalf of all Canadian families.
The reason we have to debate a motion which simply seeks to
reaffirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is that
last summer there was a Liberal Party convention held in Ottawa.
A motion was put forward, debated, voted upon and passed which
read:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the
federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same
way that it recognizes opposite marriages—
The official policy of the Liberal Party of Canada is that same
sex marriages should be recognized in the exact same manner as
opposite sex marriages.
Let us now turn to the NDP. I am looking at 1997 campaign
literature with a big heading that states: “Equality for Gays,
Lesbians and Bisexuals: Alexa McDonough and Canada's NDP”. It
goes on to say that the member for Halifax and Canada's NDP will
represent the concerns of gays, lesbians and bisexuals
consistently. In fact, that is exactly what they are doing in
the House today.
They are siding with the Liberal government and promoting the
view that the definition of marriage and spouse should be
changed.
1650
Again I will read directly from the official Liberal Party
policy:
That is where the NDPs and the Liberals are coming from.
I would like to read directly from the policy book of the Reform
Party for the benefit of members of the House to know where the
Reform Party stands on these issues. The section on equality
states:
The Reform Party affirms the equality of every individual before
and under the law and the right to equal protection and benefit
of the law.
Under the heading of family it states:
The Reform Party believes a family should be defined as
individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is
the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state and
this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits
for any program funded or administered by the federal government.
The Reform Party supports the principle that government programs,
policies and legislation should serve to strengthen and protect
the Canadian family.
The NDP and Liberal policies seek to change the definition of
marriage and spouse as opposed to the Reform Party position,
which is strongly opposed to that. I delineate the different
positions of the parties for the benefit not only of the members
of the House, but for all Canadians who may be watching the
deliberations today. I urge all Canadians to scrutinize not only
what their MPs say in the speeches as we debate this issue, but
in how they vote tonight.
I also urge Canadians from coast to coast to keep in mind at the
time of the next election, albeit that will probably be about two
years from now, that if they vote NDP or Liberal they will be
voting for the redefinition of the terms spouse and marriage.
They will be voting for the recognition of same sex marriages in
the same way that opposite marriages are recognized, as cited in
the Liberal policy which was approved at the convention last
summer.
Not only is it important to separate the Reform Party position
from those of the NDP and the Liberals for the benefit of
Canadians who wish to make up their minds on how they are going
to vote in the next election on this, but this debate is also
very important because of growing public concern over this issue.
Recent headlines in some national newspapers serve to illustrate
my point. A headline in the Ottawa Citizen read “Same-sex
partners declared spouses: Top court ruling expected to topple
hundreds of laws”. A headline in the London Free Press
was entitled “Redefining our Partnerships: This week's Supreme
Court of Canada landmark ruling could send aftershocks into
almost every sector of Canadian life”. A headline in the
Montreal Gazette read “Top Court Rewriting Laws of
Marriage”. A headline in the National Post read “Ruling
Alters Way Marriage Viewed: Family Law Expert—Implications seen
for adoptions, pensions, property rights”.
The source of public concern is not only recent newspaper
articles and coverage, but also recent court decisions. Most
notably, last year there was a decision known as the Rosenberg
decision in which the Ontario Court of Appeal changed the
definition of the term spouse in the Income Tax Act to include
same sex relationships. The Reform Party debated this in the
House of Commons and urged the government to appeal that
decision, but the government refused. The reason it refused to
appeal the decision is because of its official policy which was
passed at the convention last summer.
The other recent court decision is that of M. v H., in which
Ontario's family law act was declared unconstitutional because it
violated the equality rights of homosexuals.
Following that the justice minister announced that she would
change the definition of spouse in federal laws in an omnibus
bill to come down this fall.
1655
The justice minister is telling everyone that marriage is the
union of one man and one woman, but justice department
bureaucrats continue to put together legislation that will render
the definition of marriage useless and meaningless. It is
typical Liberal arrogance and deception, saying one thing and
doing another.
The purpose of this Reform motion is to pre-empt future supreme
court decisions by providing leadership and guidance. The Reform
motion instructs the court that the legal definition of marriage
shall remain unchanged.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member made reference to the Liberal Party convention.
As far as I know, what happens at Liberal Party conventions among
the members is not what is government policy.
He seems to be continuously confusing what was a recommendation
made by the membership of the party, which illustrates, in my
opinion, that in the Liberal Party there can be various opinions
expressed by the membership. We have an open party and an open
process where members of the Liberal Party can express their
opinions on any issue, but that is not government policy. I
would like to make sure the hon. member makes the distinction
between what was discussed at a convention and what is government
policy.
This government has no intention of changing the definition of
marriage, as the Minister of Justice said in the House earlier in
her speech and in answer to questions by hon. members.
The member talked about the Reform Party convention and the
definition of equality. I would like him to elaborate a little
more on what is considered equality in terms of the Reform
Party's policy.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, I do not know what kind of
animosity or dissension this is going to cause within the ranks
of the Liberal Party. Clearly its membership voted on and
approved a policy which stated that the Liberal Party of Canada
strongly urge the federal government to recognize same sex
marriages in the same way that it recognizes opposite marriages.
If cabinet decides to ignore the official party policy, that is
not something I would understand.
The way the Reform Party works is that every two years we have
an assembly. The membership brings forward policies and
principles which are debated and voted upon. The majority will
of the party membership determines what those policies are. The
policies do not come from the leadership or the MPs down; they
come from the grassroots membership upward.
I do not believe the hon. member was listening very closely, so
I will restate the official Reform Party policy which was
formulated by the grassroots membership, upon which it is
incumbent for Reform members of parliament to advocate:
The Reform Party believes a family should be defined as
individuals related by blood, marriage or adoption. Marriage is
the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the state and
this definition will be used in the provision of spousal benefits
for any program funded or administered by the federal government.
The Reform Party supports the principle that government programs,
policies and legislation should serve to strengthen and protect
the Canadian family.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
this is exactly what my Liberal colleague, the member for
Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, was referring to. It seems
the members of the Reform Party who spoke earlier must be blind.
We are sitting here supporting this issue. Indeed we are saying
that we believe in the traditional family of a man and a woman.
Never in M. v H. was there any reference to marriage.
I have listened with greatest to the debate throughout the day.
Instead of standing and saying that it is great the Liberal
members are supporting it and that everybody is behind this,
Reformers are exploiting the situation, saying “don't forget
when the election comes”. They are going to see tonight. I
think they are using the wrong approach. It is fearmongering,
which the member referred to earlier.
I am speaking with a loud voice because I am one of the members
supporting this excellent initiative, yet here we are playing
partisan politics. No wonder they are at 6% and dropping. It is
sad to say that they cannot read the pulse of the community.
1700
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, I would correct the hon.
member on one thing. He stated “We believe in the traditional
family”. In fact, last summer at the Liberal Party convention
here in Ottawa, the Liberal Party adopted an official policy that
the federal government should recognize same sex marriages in the
same way that it recognizes opposite sex marriages. That is in
stark contrast to the position of the Reform Party which believes
that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman.
I thank the hon. member for raising the point about the next
election because I strongly encourage all Canadians to keep this
in mind at that time.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, this
is indeed one of those debates where emotions run high, feelings
run deep and the understandings are also very much in a state of
flux.
I commend a number of members from all parties who have said
they understand what the meaning of marriage is and that they
want to support and affirm that marriage is that of one woman and
one man to the exclusion of all others. That is our motion.
I want to do three things. I want to deal with the need for
definition. I want to deal with the business of choices. And I
want to deal with the matter of leadership.
The issue is rather significant. On the one hand it seems to be
absolutely clear that everybody understands what marriage is, yet
the judges want a clear definition and direction. All kinds of
acrimonious statements have been made as to what might the
motivation be, of why the Reform Party would enter this kind of
debate. Is it simply for partisan advantage? Is it strictly
crass politics and things of that sort? It is nothing of the
kind.
When we get into the question of leadership, and that is really
what we are into here, we want to recognize that one of the most
important things in leadership is to influence others. In
particular parliament influences all the people of Canada. The
people of Canada will either be affected positively, negatively
or they may simply turn off, but influenced they are
nevertheless. We influence each other here in the House.
Through the reassertion of the definition we want to influence
the judges of the land. We want to make sure that the courts and
the decisions they render are indeed consistent with the
definition that is being proposed here. We want to make it
abundantly clear as well to all members of the House that we
agree together on what it is we understand by the term marriage.
Why is it that we need to have these definitions? Marriage is
one of those words that needs a definition but it also has all
kinds of emotional connotations. It has spiritual connotations.
It has the experiential knowledge of each of us.
I admit that I am a married man. As of March of this year my
good wife and I have shared our lives together for 43 years. It
has been a wonderful time. We have had our ups, we have had our
downs, we have had our disagreements and confrontations, but we
have lived together in a very happy relationship. I am very
proud of it and very thankful for the wife who is mine.
The important thing here is to recognize that we have the need
to define exactly what it is. I want to go back in history as to
how important definitions really are. It comes to me from the
field of science. In science we have a very significant
suggestion.
When Mendeleev first put together the periodic table of the
elements, he defined very clearly the order of the elements by
arranging them in order by atomic number. He discovered there was
a systematic recurrence of those elements which had similar
characteristics even though their atomic number increased.
It was the definition of the periodic table and how it worked
with the various elements that became very significant not only
in understanding how the elements work and interact with one
another, but in order to communicate with others so that they
could understand what was being talked about.
1705
We can use another example of the need for definition. I like
this one even better. It comes from the field of biology and
botany, medicine if you will. The botanist clearly defines each
of the parts of a plant and distinguishes one plant from another.
It is in this definition where it clearly indicates what a
particular plant is or what a particular thing is in distinction
to the exclusion of all others.
That is what we are talking about here today. We are not saying
what marriage is not; we are simply saying what marriage is. By
saying what marriage is means it is absolutely nothing else.
That seems to be lost in this debate somewhere. We are focusing
very clearly and very definitely on a particular institution
which is marriage and which is said very clearly to be the union
of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is
what this is all about.
Within that definition we need to be absolutely clear as to
exactly what we want the courts and judges of this land to
interpret when they have before them cases dealing with this
matter. That this is a live issue has become abundantly clear
with the kind of statements that have come forward from various
members on both sides of the House.
We simply want to assure and affirm to the people of Canada and
to all of us here assembled that marriage shall continue to mean
today and in the future the union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others.
There was an amendment put forward this morning “within the
jurisdiction of parliament”. Of course, what else would it be
but within the jurisdiction of parliament? That is the most
important part. This parliament creates the law. This
parliament determines the wishes of the people. It bases the law
on the determination of the wishes of the people. Sometimes
parliament can be wrong and if the government misinterprets what
the people think, then it gets thrown out as happened recently in
New Brunswick. We want it to be clear and if all parties agree on
what the definition of marriage is, then we can recognize that
all parties in future will recognize that this is what it is. We
are parliament. We create the law of the land.
What is the choice that we have here today? If that is the
clear definition we are working on, the choice before us is
whether we will or will not affirm that. That is the clear
choice we have today. That is the motivation behind what the
Reform Party is doing. We can talk about crass politics and
partisan politics, but all of that is totally beside the point.
The choice is very simple: do we or do we not affirm marriage as
the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others?
Why is it so important that parliament make that choice and that
decision? It comes from a number of judges. Here is what they
have said:
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the
long-established principle that in a constitutional democracy it
is the legislature, as the elected branch of government, which
should assume the major responsibility for law reform.
Considerations such as these suggest that major revisions of the
law are best left to the legislature.
The affirmations also apply to the legislature. The issues
here—
—are of such magnitude, consequence, and difficulty in policy
terms that they exceed the proper incremental lawmaking powers of
the courts. These are the sort of changes which should be left
to the legislature.
The interpretation should be left to the legislature is exactly
what is meant.
If anything is to be done, the legislature is in a much better
position to weigh the competing interests and to arrive at a
solution that is principled and minimally intrusive.
1710
Why is it so important that we make a choice? I want to read
this because it is very important to recognize why choices are so
significant: “I believe every person is created as the steward
of his or her own destiny with great power for a specific
purpose: to share with others through service a reverence for
life in a spirit of love”. No matter what our age, our
experience or our position, we can dream a dream that will make
a difference. We can have a mission that matters,
the choices we make end up controlling the chooser.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to compliment the member for his comments and the delivery
of his thoughts on this issue. We are coming to the end of the
debate. It was interesting to see the support coming forward from
almost all sides of the House.
It has also been interesting to see that some people in the
House have tried to turn this into something that it is not. This
is strictly, as the motion says, to reaffirm the definition of
marriage and to debate it in the House to let Canadians know how
parliamentarians feel about this.
I have been fortunate. I was married in 1967 and I am still
married to the same person. I am fortunate, but possibly she is
not so fortunate, but we have managed to stay together all these
years.
The commitment that is made to marriage goes beyond trying to
seek out a partner to get as many benefits as one can from the
government. It is what we are talking about today. It is the
basis for strong families.
I would like the member to comment on the aspect of families and
society and how the definition of marriage is the basis for all
that and what strong families can mean to a better Canada.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, to me the family is the
fundamental unit in society. History shows very clearly that it
is the single most effective way of transmitting values from one
generation to another.
It is also the place where people learn the first elements of
communication. It is where they learn the first loving
relationships that can be developed. It is where caring can be
established and recognition of the need to have compassion for
others who are less fortunate, recognition of the importance of
sharing what one has with others and recognition that indeed this
business of getting along with others is not automatic. When
parents have a debate or an argument the children can see that.
They can recognize it. They see that ways can be found to resolve
that.
There is a tremendous learning experience. The family is
absolutely critical for doing that. What does marriage have to
do with the family? That is the initial position of the family.
That creates the family in the first instance. Are there other
definitions of family that can be brought into play? Of course
there are. But marriage is absolutely central at the first
instance. At the first level it is central. That is my belief.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to another
part of the member's presentation.
I know how passionately the member feels about being a member of
the House of Commons and how much pride he has in being here. I
would like him to comment on how feels about the ability to stand
in this place today and air this issue on all sides. How
important is that to the debate that will take place across the
land?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Mr. Speaker, you would almost think
the hon. member has had a chance to look inside my brain and my
heart. I thank the hon. member for that question.
Indeed it is an honour and a privilege to be here. How
important is it for what is going to happen in the rest of this
land? It is fundamental and it is setting the direction.
This place leads the land, but sometimes we wonder in what
direction it is taking the land. When we look at the debt
situation and various other things we ask ourselves that
question.
1715
As Reformers, we are here for one thing and that is to give
voice to the people who elected us and to recognize the
principles that they put together, not the principles that we, as
elected members of the Reform Party, can ignore, which, as the
members opposite said, they can do to their convention. I am
proud that we cannot do that because I do not want to that.
Our job here is to honestly reflect the wishes of the people who
elected us. I am proud to be able to do that.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to share my time tonight with the member for Thornhill.
I am very happy and pleased to be able to rise tonight on this
debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre has put forth a
motion for the consideration of the House that the institution of
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others and that parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage.
Let me clearly state to the House, to the people of Canada and
most especially to the people of my riding of Erie—Lincoln that
I support the motion without hesitation.
The institution of marriage is clearly and unequivocally the
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
This definition has been appropriate and has served us well in
the past. It is appropriate and serves us well now. It will
continue to be appropriate and serve us well in the future. There
are no exceptions, no qualifications and no limitations. The
statement is clear and concise. It is the union of two persons
of the opposite sex.
Indeed, this position of the federal common law goes back to the
1866 British case of Hyde and Hyde v Woodmansee. This case has
been consistently applied in Canada. This long-standing case
simply states that no marriage can exist between two persons of
the same sex or between multiple wives or husbands. This is the
definition that has been acknowledged and accepted by the
citizens of the country and by the courts. Yes, Mr. Speaker, by
the courts.
Let us consider the Ontario case of Layland and Beaulne where
the applicants sought to use section 15 of the charter of rights
to bring a change in the commonly accepted definition of
marriage. The court soundly and firmly rejected their arguments
and reaffirmed the long-standing definition of marriage as the
union of one man and one woman.
The government has no intention now or ever of changing the
legal and long-standing definition of marriage, or of legislating
same sex marriages. Those who would suggest otherwise only serve
to foment unwarranted fear and divisiveness.
Canada faces no social problem more important than the
strengthening of a family, reducing the number of births outside
marriage, cutting the rates of divorce and coming to the aid of
children disadvantaged by broken homes. Every measure must be
taken to reinforce and revitalize the institution of marriage,
real marriage between men and women, mothers and fathers, lasting
for life. The hon. member's motion is one step in this process
and he has my support.
Same sex marriages do nothing to advance the position of family.
Same sex marriages are the antithesis of family. The same sex
marriage issue has come before the House previously and I and the
House have unequivocally rejected the concept. It is
unacceptable and will not and cannot be tolerated.
Hopefully the motion before the House today will clarify the
position of the House once and for all. I encourage all members
to support it.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to participate in the debate.
I was talking to a constituent earlier who wanted to know what
we were debating today. She was wondering if we were changing
the definition of marriage in the statutes of the Government of
Canada. I told her that we were not changing the definition of
marriage in the statutes of Canada and that the Reform Party, the
official opposition, was bringing forward a motion to clarify
that we would not do that. She then wanted to know why the
motion was before the House if we were not doing that. I told
her that there had been some recent court cases which suggested
that some of the laws that are presently on the books in Canada
are unconstitutional and discriminate against same sex partners
on the basis of the receiving of benefits. She then wanted to
know what that had to do with marriage. I told her that it had
nothing to do with marriage.
1720
As I begin my remarks, I want to reiterate that the decisions of
the courts of the land have done nothing to change the definition
of marriage. I believe that the results of today's vote will
clearly state to the people of Canada that the courts have not
changed the definition of marriage nor is it the intention of the
government to change the definition of marriage. However, we
will address those issues which the courts have rightly pointed
out to us, those issues which may, in the courts' views, be
treating some citizens of the country in a discriminatory manner.
That is the role of the courts.
As part of my remarks, I will focus on the role of the courts in
these important discussions on public policy issues. When the
courts signal to parliament that the charter of rights is not
being protected for all Canadians, elected legislatures, whether
it is the federal or provincial government that has passed a law
that the court has ruled on, are free to choose how to respond.
However, the solution must be constitutional.
We have a constitution and a charter of rights and freedoms in
Canada that we, as parliamentarians and all elected officials
across the land, have an obligation to live up to. We must live
up to the values and principles that are enshrined in that
charter of rights and freedoms. I believe I have a
responsibility, as the member for Thornhill, to do that not only
on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of all constituents in
Canada who expect legislators and parliamentarians to protect
their freedoms.
While we may not always like the decisions of the courts, we
must take heed when they say we are not protecting the rights of
all individuals, that we are discriminating against some. We
must update our laws to bring them into compliance with our
constitutional responsibility.
In the government's view, the courts have demonstrated an
appreciation for their role in a democratic society. I believe,
and the government believes, that courts must continue to be
independent and free to make difficult decisions in accordance
with the principles set down in our charter of rights and
freedoms. That is the role that we Canadians have given to our
courts.
While there is much room for debate on how exactly that role
should be carried out, in my view it serves no constructive
purpose to attack the courts for what Canadians have asked them
to do.
On the contrary, some of the comments that we have heard in the
House and elsewhere have suggested that the courts have no
business making decisions that declare unconstitutional laws that
have been passed in parliament. In doing so, some would suggest
they are usurping the public interest and the public policy
functions of parliament.
This term is often described as judicial activism. Critics of
judicial activism, in my view, are deliberately creating an
impression that the courts are usurping to themselves a role that
is not contemplated in our democratic constitutional structure,
an impression which causes people to question the legitimacy of
the role of the courts in the development of law.
I think that has a negative impact on the pride we have in our
institutions and on the important role that we play. There is
clearly a difference between the role of parliament and the role
of the courts. We need both of those institutions to hold the
respect of the public if we are to succeed in the kind of public
policy making that is in the interests of Canadians.
The impression that is being left as to the inappropriateness of
the courts having this role is not only misleading, but it raises
the potential for serious harm to the credibility of an important
institution, the Canadian court, and the public perception of our
whole justice system.
I give this cautionary note not only to the people who are in
this House today listening to this debate but also those who are
watching. When concerns are expressed about the extent to which
the courts are now prepared to use the power of judicial review
under the charter, it is helpful to bear in mind not only that
the power of judicial review has always existed under Canada's
constitution but also, quite apart from the power of judicial
review, Canada's courts have always had a significant role to
play in relation to the law making function of government,
particularly through the development of Canadian common law.
1725
It is the courts in their interpretation that have given us the
body of court cases and common law that is the foundation of our
judicial system. I would say to the House that if we tear that
down, we tear down not only a fundamental institution in our
society but we tear down the freedom and the right of Canadians
to expect fairness in the judicial system.
There is no question that the courts have a more high profile
role since we have the charter, a charter, I might say, that was
brought to us by our now prime minister. I know it is something
he is particularly proud of after 36 years in this wonderful
House. His pride in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
is something that I think all Canadians can share. It is their
charter of rights and freedoms, and it is their supreme court
that makes the interpretations of that charter that guards the
rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
I think that is one of the reasons that the United Nations, for
the sixth year in a row, has declared Canada the number one
country in the world. There are many things for us to be proud
of, but the important role of our judiciary in safeguarding our
rights and freedoms, and sometimes pushing parliamentarians and
legislators to do the right thing, is a very important function.
The present debate about the role of the courts is not
surprising because of how young our charter is. When we look
around the world we see that wherever there is a constitution it
is constantly being defined and refined according to community
values and standards in the courts in the free world.
The truth of the matter is that the Supreme Court of Canada has
shown itself to be very sensitive to the concerns about judicial
review, but that critics of judicial activism over the years have
done a great disservice to our court. We are not only talking
about a judiciary that holds legislation unconstitutional with
great abandon. They do not do that. They are a very
conservative court. If we look at the record of their judgments,
they have acted appropriately in the interest of Canadians.
We should keep in mind the observations of Peter Hogg, one of
Canada's pre-eminent constitutional scholars, who said:
Judicial review is not a veto over the politics of a nations, but
rather, the beginning of a dialogue as to how best to reconcile
the individualistic values of the charter with the
accomplishments of social policies for the benefit of the
community as a whole.
I hope today's debate will not confuse anyone. I hope today's
debate will not send out a message to anyone that is different
from the facts.
The fact is that the decisions of the court have been consistent
with protecting the rights and privileges of every Canadian. The
decisions of the courts have said to the governments that they
cannot and must not discriminate against individuals. Those
decisions have done nothing to change the definition of marriage
in the country and it is not the policy of the Liberal government
to change the definition of marriage. What makes the debate
today very important is that it gives us a chance to state that
clearly.
As I wind up the debate, I say to the House that it has been a
privilege to have the opportunity to clarify and state on behalf
of the people of Thornhill that I believe that the courts play an
important role in protecting our rights and freedoms in Canada.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Thornhill once again, as some of her
colleagues have done, expresses curiosity at why we should be
discussing this motion here today, as though no one in the
country, as the attorney general suggested earlier, is even
discussing the question of the redefinition of marriage. We have
plainly had it proposed right here in the House today by members
of this place.
The hon. member went on to say at the end of her remarks that it
was not the policy of the Government of Canada to change the
legal definition of marriage, but eight or nine minutes of her
ten minute talk was a lecture on the importance of judicial
review.
1730
No member of the opposition or nobody who understands the
constitution would disagree with the necessity of judicial
review, that is to say, the appropriate interpretation of
statutes in light of our charter and constitutional framework.
Objections are raised by us and others when the courts go beyond
interpretation to legislate from the bench without an appropriate
authority in the charter.
I see nowhere in the charter a basis for changing the legal
definition of marriage. Yet we have recently seen a change in
the legal definition of spouse, so this is a reasonable question.
The hon. member said that the government does not have a policy
on this. Her party does. I was at the Liberal Party convention
last summer where a policy was passed that said:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the
federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same
way that it recognizes opposite marriages—
I simply ask the hon. member for Thornhill how this question is
not relevant. How is it not a question of public debate when her
own party introduced it as a matter of public debate and urged
her government to change this policy?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reiterate
once again that the facts before us today are very clear. We
have not had a court decision which changes the definition of
marriage. It is not the stated policy of the government to
change the definition of marriage. It is only the Reform Party,
in its own mind, that is suggesting that any of those things are
occurring.
That is why Reformers brought forward the motion today. That is
why it has been referred to as a red herring. That is why it is
frankly confusing Canadians. I say that again to the member
opposite who clearly does not want to hear the facts because they
do not fit with his agenda.
I have served in opposition. It is clear what Reformers are
doing. This is opposition for opposition sake. With all the
important things on the public policy agenda, these folks today
come in with a motion clearly designed to confuse Canadians.
The courts have not changed the definition of marriage. The
government has no intention of changing the definition of
marriage. What we are intent on doing is ensuring that Canadians
are not discriminated against.
When the court points that out to us, we are prepared to update
our laws to ensure that all Canadians live in a society free from
discrimination wherever possible.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member across the way keeps saying that the courts have
not changed the definition of marriage. The Liberal approach
seems to be to wait until the courts change it and then draft
some legislation around it. In that way the people are shut out
of the process. The courts have changed the definition of spouse
and the government is now intending to change the legislation
around that.
Why can we not take a proactive approach, as we are doing today,
to pre-empt a court ruling? The government would hide behind the
robes of supreme court judges to put forward legislation along
the lines of a redefined definition of marriage. That is what
this is about today.
If tomorrow the courts were to rule that the opposite sex
definition of marriage is unconstitutional, what would the hon.
member across the way do about that?
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I heard the member
opposite say that he would like to change the definition of
marriage. The government does not want to do that. The Liberal
Party, as reflected in its policies in the House and during the
previous election campaign, does not want to do that.
We do not expect it is an issue that will be before the House. I
am quite surprised that the member would say that he wants to
move ahead with a debate and discussion that would change the
definition of marriage. We do not believe Canadians want that at
this time, and I am surprised that he would suggest it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
It has been quite fascinating to sit in the House and watch this
debate. Normally we would think an opposition motion supported
by the government would be cause for celebration. Normally I
would expect to say to my colleagues across the way that we are
on the same wavelength.
1735
I have listened to those who have tried to impugn the motive of
the motion. I do not quite understand how anyone can look into
the heart of someone making a motion and tell what the motives
are. I wish the motion could stand as it is, because it is an
affirmation of marriage as most Canadians understand it.
I will explain again to my colleagues why I think the motion is
worth while and necessary. It is because there are signs that
marriage is under some stress in terms of definition. I will
list for my colleagues some of the signs I see. I come to this
as a clinician who counselled about marriage for 25 years of my
life. I have watched marriage decrease in terms of its
importance in Canada as well as some definitional changes.
Do we need clarification? I say we do. Do we need
reaffirmation of the definition of marriage? I say we do. One
of the things I have watched is a redefinition of spouse. It
happened so recently that I am surprised my colleagues across the
way would not reflect upon it. There has been a recent
redefinition of spouse in the courts of Canada. That is an
indication that there is a very definite need to take a specific
stand.
What do my own constituents say about it? I live in southwest
Alberta and I took the opportunity to poll my constituents in
relation to what they think about marriage. They have some
concerns and are worried. They are very firm on the issue of no
redefinition of marriage. They say that marriage must be as they
have traditionally understood it.
Are the courts gradually changing the institution of marriage
and the long term future of marriage? My answer is a resounding
yes. Parliament should be, 100%, the last bastion for marriage
when it comes to definition. There should be no social or
judicial activism when it relates to marriage.
Let us look outside Canada for evidence on whether marriage is
being redefined elsewhere. There was a recent attempt to
redefine marriage in the states of Alaska and Hawaii. I had one
of my colleagues make light of it and jokingly say that in one
spot their brains were frozen. It was not light at all.
In those areas they tried to redefine marriage in a very
specific legislative way. They handled it a different way from
judicial activism. Both states went to the public with
referendums at election time. It was fascinating to see what
happened in both Alaska and Hawaii as they tried to openly and
vigorously redefine marriage. In both cases the public rejected
the redefinition of marriage. That tells me where the public is,
along with my constituents who say that a redefinition of
marriage is not on. The redefinition was renounced.
It concerns me that many of my colleagues seem to ignore what
the social activists say. We have heard two or three times in
the House that the redefinition of marriage according to social
activists is premature. That tells me whether or not the issue
is on the table.
I had an opportunity in the last parliament to debate Bill C-33
respecting sexual orientation and non-discrimination. I stated
in the House publicly that I felt it was part of an ongoing
campaign to redefine marriage.
I also stated that there were four steps. The first step was
what Bill C-33 was trying to do. The second step was a
redefinition of spouse. The third step was adoption. The fourth
step would be a redefinition of marriage. I was roundly
condemned by my colleagues across the way for saying that, but
not five minutes after that bill passed a social activist in the
House stood outside in the lobby and said that was exactly what
was going on, that was exactly the intent.
1740
To my Liberal colleagues who say there is nothing in the Liberal
Party of Canada government-wise, I cannot imagine how a
resolution passed at its last convention can be so quickly
ignored. It says:
This was not done in isolation. This was not done in a vacuum.
This was done actively.
I am delighted that my Liberal colleagues will support the
motion. The statement we are making today is not so much for
those of us in the House as it is profoundly important to the
courts. The vote on the importance of the definition of marriage
is probably the most important vote we will take in the House
during my time here. I am delighted that my colleagues across
the way will be supporting it. For those who cannot, I will be
interested in listening to their rationale.
It would normally be a cause of celebration for me to say that
we are on the same wavelength, that we are on the same path. I
have difficulty understanding the issue of trying to find bad
motives because I think the motives are very plain: affirmation
of the strongest institution in Canada, affirmation of marriage.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am informed there are so many people on this side of the House
who wish to speak that I will not have an opportunity to deliver
a full speech. However, I will take the opportunity to ask a
question or make a comment in respect of the very important
debate we are having today.
I unequivocally congratulate the hon. member for bringing
forward the motion. I agree with everything the previous speaker
just said. It is absolutely critical that the House speak to
this issue.
I have a couple of questions for the hon. member as I have heard
a few incorrect statements made in the House. Would the hon.
member agree there is no statute with respect to marriage that
deals with the capacity to marry?
Would he agree that the only statute the Parliament of Canada
has is chapter M-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada which
contains three sections and is called the Marriage Act? None of
those three sections deal with the fundamental issue that a
marriage can only be between a male and a female and only of a
single male and a single female.
Would he agree with me that no statute in fact deals with this,
that it is judge-made law, and that the problem is that if it is
judge-made law judges can change it?
I have a second question about whether he would agree, for those
who have been bandying about supreme court cases and in
particular the case of M. v H., that the majority in this case
said the following:
We emphasize that the definition of “spouse” found in s. 1(1) of
the FLA, and which applies to other parts of the FLA, includes
only married persons and is not at issue in this appeal.
In other words, M. v H does not deal with the issue of marriage
and should not be used to cloud this debate. Would the hon.
member agree with these two statements?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, I am not a solicitor or a
lawyer so when it comes to the nuances of law I have some
difficulty.
I do know that the two statements of the hon. gentleman across
the way are true. They are accurate statements. From my own
perspective I simply want to reaffirm the importance of marriage
as an institution in Canada.
I am delighted to hear that the member opposite will be voting
for the motion as will many of his colleagues across the way.
1745
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member made reference to debate that occurred in the House
on Bill C-33. I would like to quote one of his members in terms
of what he said during a debate we had which was to expand human
rights protection to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
The member for Yorkton—Melville said:
I believe this legislation will lead to redefinition of the
family, marriage and spouse in Canadian law which in turn will
permit gay marriages, spousal benefits to gay couples, gay
adoption, restriction of religious freedom and expression, and
open the door for sex perverts and pedophiles to seek Charter
protection by claiming that their criminal sexual preferences are
just another sexual orientation.
That was said on May 2, 1996. Despite the member's gloom and
doom scenario, no Liberal policy has left the door wide open for
“sex perverts and pedophiles” as the hon. member predicted in
his fearmongering.
Since the hon. member made reference to Bill C-33, does he agree
with the comments made by the other member of his party?
Mr. Grant Hill: Madam Speaker, of course history will
prove or disprove any comments made in the House.
I of course have paid some attention to what has happened in
British Columbia with a recent judicial decision that has made
the possession of child pornography quite acceptable. My
constituents disagree vigorously with that.
The most important thing I am saying today, and I will say it as
plainly as I can to the member, is that this is about affirming
the importance of the institution of marriage. If the member
opposite is not comfortable with that I am interested as to why.
If we want to go off on a tangent in other areas, she may, but I
will not.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in debate on the motion brought before us by
the official opposition, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all
necessary steps to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada.
The definition included in the motion before us is the standard
common law definition which the government affirms, for instance,
in its response to the many tens of thousands of petitions
brought before this place.
We are simply seeking to reaffirm what has been the legal common
law understanding of the past 150 years or more in Canada and the
Commonwealth and, more importantly, to reaffirm the normative
understanding of an essential social institution, the basic
institution of civil society as it has been understood for
millennia, through all of human civilization.
Some members opposite, including the member for Thornhill, the
hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, have
indicated that this is a moot point and a redundant motion
insofar as no one is proposing any changes.
I find this quite unbelievable because I have several times
today quoted from what I think is a relatively important
authority which has proposed a change to the law in this respect
and that institution just so happens to be the Liberal Party of
Canada.
First, I want to commend members opposite for supporting this
motion, and I commend the many members who have stood in the
House to indicate that they share our view, that this is an
important debate to have so that we can place on the official
parliamentary record the importance of reaffirming the common law
understanding of marriage. Yet we have heard from certain
members opposite, such as the member for Thornhill, the member
for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, the parliamentary
secretary to the attorney general, and the attorney general
herself, who said this morning: “Why use the already limited
time of the House to debate a motion, on which, I suspect, there
will be no fundamental disagreement inside or outside the
House?”
Just as I was standing, the hon. member for Thornhill said that
no one is proposing any changes to the definition of marriage.
Then why is it that I have in my hand a resolution passed by the
duly elected delegates of the Liberal Party of Canada at their
policy convention last summer, where I stood as an observer,
which reads:
Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada strongly urge the
federal government to recognize same sex marriages in the same
way it recognizes opposite marriages—
1750
Just a moment ago the member from Thornhill said that no one is
proposing a change. The Liberal Party of Canada is proposing a
change. The Government of Canada may not be responding to its
party members. That is its own business. It can govern its own
affairs as it wishes.
I think it is absolutely incumbent upon us to point out that
people are proposing change in an institution no less than the
Liberal Party of Canada. Hon. members say that we should let the
courts tend to their business of judicial review, that we have
the charter and the charter will be interpreted fairly by the
courts and members of this parliament can sit by as passive
observers and watch that process unfold.
If one were to have suggested at the time of the introduction of
the charter of rights that the legal definition of spouse would
be fundamentally changed, people would have said that is
unbelievable. That is fearmongering, they would have said.
One of the major decisions in the charter era was the
Morgentaler decision striking down section 251 of the Criminal
Code in 1988. Yet back in 1981, when the charter was debated in
this place, the then attorney general, the current Right Hon.
Prime Minister, was asked at committee whether any section of the
charter could possibly be used to strike down the criminal
provisions with respect to abortion and the then attorney
general, the now Prime Minister, said, “Oh, no”. He said it in
Hansard. We can reference it. The point is that we cannot
predict with any degree of certitude what the courts are likely
to do in their increasingly expanded understanding of judicial
review.
That is why it is incumbent upon us to accept the invitation of
the judges, of the courts, to enter into a dialogue. A dialogue
is a two way conversation. It is not a monologue. To date we
have merely had a monologue from the courts on issues of this
nature. It is now time for parliament to speak so that we are on
the record as asserting the current legal common law definition
of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the
exclusion of all others.
I cannot imagine why this would be a controversial motion. I
cannot imagine why the Liberal Party would propose to scrap this
definition. I cannot imagine for my own purposes why the courts
of Canada would choose to change substantively the nature of
marriage in law as they have essentially done through the M and H
and other related decisions regarding spousal relations.
Let us be clear. The Liberal member from Mississauga quoted Mr.
Corbett from the Foundation for Equal Families as saying that at
this point the question of the definition of marriage is
premature, from which a reasonable person could infer that his
organization and like-minded individuals will use their
democratic right to go to the courts to seek a redefinition of
marriage; not at this time, because they do have an incremental
legal agenda, and that is quite understandable, but at some point
in the future. I do not think any reasonable person can have any
doubt that a litigant will come before our courts seeking to
strike down the current exclusionary definition of marriage, the
common law definition, using as a basis the charter of rights.
The government's posture, as articulated today, would be to sit
back passively and allow the courts possibly to redefine the
meaning of marriage at that time.
That is why we have come before the House today in 1999. That
litigation might not occur this year. It might not occur for
three or four years, but sooner or later it surely will occur.
If we pass this motion tonight the Parliament of Canada, the
supreme lawmaking body of this country, will have spoken and will
be on the record affirming the age old common law understanding
of the institution of marriage, which is absolutely central to a
healthy civil society.
1755
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I would
like to applaud the Reform Party for the motion that it has
brought forward today and the dialogue that has taken place.
There has been a lot of unease over the last while with respect
to some of the decisions taken by the courts. I do not believe
that those recent decisions apply to today's debate, but I
applaud the merits of the debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Southeast said that he could not
imagine why anybody would have a problem with the motion which
has been put forward. He pointed out quite clearly that because
of the charter a lot of decisions have started to take place. If
it was proclaimed that the definition of spouse and marriage
could be changed when the charter was brought in in 1982, I
guarantee members that the artificial support we had for the
charter would not have been there.
The definition of marriage has always been that of a union
between a man and a woman. In his opinion, does he agree that it
always should be?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I
appreciate the intervention.
Politicians seem to think that we can change the ontological
meaning of words, of concepts. Marriage has enormous meaning.
It has a certain objective meaning. It is tautological to say
that marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a
woman. It is tautological. Of course marriage means that. Not
even the Parliament of Canada, not even a bunch of judges can
change a metaphysical reality. That is what a marriage is.
People will come before the courts seeking to change the legal
privileges given to married people and to expand them. However,
there is a certain reality. Marriage is marriage. It is between
a man and a woman and it can be between no others. We are simply
affirming that basic metaphysical reality through this motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to the debate today and I want to thank the hon. member
for his comments.
When the charter of rights was introduced I do not think that
anyone would have believed that prisoners would receive the right
to vote based upon the charter. I do not believe that anyone in
Canada would have believed that bogus refugees, as soon as they
land in Canada, would have all of the protections of the charter
of rights and freedoms. I do not believe that the people of this
country, at the time the charter was brought in, would have
believed it if someone would have said that it would be used to
strike down the abortion laws of the Criminal Code of Canada. I
do not think the people of Canada back in those days would have
believed that this government would bring in a bill that would
allow for benefits to be transferred to Canadians based upon a
sexual relationship, and Bill C-78 has done exactly that.
When we look at the whole institution of marriage and its
definition, when we listen to people who scorn or attack the
motion, saying that it is a moot question or a waste of time, and
when we look at the history of what the charter has done to
society in this country, we have reason to be concerned. I would
like the member to comment on that.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Madam Speaker, the member for Crowfoot
makes the point very well. We all support appropriate judicial
review where the courts narrowly use their appropriate
constitutional authority to interpret and define the laws.
But for the courts to invent rights in the charter which are not
explicit, which were not enshrined in it by the framers in 1982
is illegitimate in our view. That is why we must speak, to make
it clear and plain to the courts that no jurisprudence can change
the common law understanding of marriage. This parliament will
take whatever action is necessary to uphold marriage contra any
decision by the courts.
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
do not hesitate in supporting your calling the House to order at
such a solemn moment, not just because I am rising to speak, but
also because I believe the matter raised by the Reform Party is
an important one.
I agree with the Reform Party that we need to discuss these
matters. I am not of course in agreement with the position
proposed. We need to discuss these matters because marriage is
not a reality of divine right. It is not something that exists
in itself, but something set out in legislation, and therefore
something important for us to discuss.
Since I have about 20 minutes, I will take the time
to read the wording of the motion in order to clearly set
today's debate in context. The Reform Party motion reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of
public debate around recent court decisions, to state that
marriage is and should remain—
We can see the imperative nature of this motion.
In fact, some people have asked whether the wording “all
necessary steps” means going so far as to use the
notwithstanding clause. The question can be asked, and I think
that members of the Reform Party will have to answer it.
I do not believe that marriage should be limited to one man and
one woman. I am among those who believe—and I will give my
reasons later—that we should consider opening up the institution
of marriage because marriage is not a divine right. It is an
institution that required lawmakers to step in, and that is why
conventional marriage as we know it is a prerogative of this
parliament. The solemnization of marriage is a prerogative of
various legislatures, but the definition of marriage has
required that lawmakers step in, or we would not be looking at a
motion such as this.
If marriage were limited strictly to canonical law, it would not
concern us as parliamentarians. But canonical law is not the
issue here.
I know that throughout their history, our Reform Party
colleagues have made a number of attempts, some of them more
adroit than others, to limit or refuse to recognize the right of
two men or two women to form a conjugal union. I say again that
I believe strongly that two men or two women can form conjugal
unions and that lawmakers must recognize this reality, much as
the supreme court has done in its recent decisions.
Before exploring this topic any further, I want to ask to what
the motion is referring when it mentions various court decisions.
Since 1992 a number of decisions both of administrative
tribunals and of superior courts, such as the Ontario Court of
Appeal and the supreme court, have progressively recognized and
established case law and have handed down decisions recognizing
same sex couples.
I will give a bit of background here. I know that I
have the House's full attention and I am delighted. In 1992,
when Kim Campbell was the minister of justice—I do not want to
dredge up bad memories in the House—a decision was handed down by
the Ontario Court of Appeal.
This decision was the start of abundant jurisprudence.
1805
In 1992, in the Haig case, the Ontario Court of Appeal
overturned the Canadian human rights legislation saying that it
was unconstitutional because it did not recognize sexual
orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. The
government amended the law and we are grateful to it for doing
so. This was at the time the current Minister of Health was the
minister of justice.
Following the Haig decision, there was increasing recognition in
legal annals that continued to grow in strength.
Real case law was therefore born giving recognition to the fact
that there could be common law conjugal unions between two men
and two women, that is, partners of the same sex.
There was the decision in Haig. Recently there was the decision
in Rosenberg where once again the Ontario Court of Appeal
overturned certain provisions of the Income Tax Act saying that they
were not compatible with section 15 of the Canadian charter of
human rights by not according same sex partners survivor
benefits.
Treasury Board amended this legislation.
We would have preferred an omnibus bill. I have been tirelessly
proposing year after year since 1994 in private member's bills
that parliament acknowledge same sex spouses and permit passage
of a single piece of legislation amending all existing laws.
There are some 70 laws. All heterosexual definitions according
benefits and requirements would include a homosexual definition
of spouses.
I do not despair because increasingly persistent rumours—and I
ask the parliamentary secretary to nod if she believes these
rumours have some basis—are intimating that in October the
government will table, in an unprecedented act of generosity, a
bill recognizing same sex spouses.
I can tell him in advance that he can count on my support and,
more widely, that of the Bloc Quebecois, I believe.
When addressing these issues, we are speaking of the recognition
of spouses of the same sex. That is what the Reform Party
members are against. They have in fact introduced a motion
against the Rosenberg decision.
Canadians, Quebecers and all those who support human rights must
know that the Reform Party does not recognize that two women or
two men can love each other and be protected by the legislator.
That is the starting point of a debate such as the one we are
having here today.
Since they do not acknowledge the existence of such a reality,
hon. members will realize that anything even remotely connected
to this is also disapproved of by the Reform Party.
It is their right as parliamentarians to discuss these matters
and to hold that position but, in my opinion,
their position is archaic and dated. It is rooted in another
century. Canadians and Quebecers are far more generous in
spirit than the Reform Party would have us believe. All those
who agree with me applaud now.
That having been said, we agree that Canadians and Quebecers are
far more generous, tolerant and open-minded than the Reform Party
would have us believe.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Long live Canada.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary
to keep her cool. I sense this may be going somewhere I do not
wish to go.
1810
There is no one in the House who can say how many people of
homosexual orientation there are. Why is that so? Because it
is not part of our tax returns. When people file tax returns
they do not declare whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.
When there is a census we do not declare whether we are
heterosexual or homosexual. So no one can say how many in the
population are gay.
What we do know, however, is that gays are taxpaying members of
society, members of the workforce. Often they are involved in
their communities. There is no reason that would justify our
not recognizing that reality, as parliamentarians.
The recognition of marriage, as you
yourself have experienced it, Madam Speaker, is not something
the gay community is calling for. In the last five years I do
not think I have met ten people in the community who have told
me they thought I should take up this battle. It is not a big
issue in the gay community, which is not to say that it is not
discriminatory to prevent homosexuals from marrying.
It may not be a big issue in the gay community but last year an
application was made to the Quebec superior court for a
declaratory judgment nonetheless. If Reform Party members wish
to read this application I am prepared to table a copy.
This would bring home to parliamentarians that although this is
not a major issue in the community and although there is a
stronger body of opinion calling for recognition of same sex
spouses, there are in fact a few cases pending before the
courts.
Last year two Quebecers, Michael Hendrix and René Leboeuf, made
an application for a declaratory judgment to strike down article
365 of the Civil Code. A number of arguments were advanced that
I think it would be useful to share with the House.
I would like to digress at this point to say that if someone
offered to marry me tomorrow morning it is not a course I would
take, although someone does have his eye on me and any desire I
may have had to remain unattached is flagging. After three
years, perhaps my colleagues have noticed that I am a different
man when I am in love.
I say that even if marriage were legalized I would not commit
to it.
However, in all logic, in all fairness, I think we must
recognize that homosexual men and women are similar to people
who have married.
I will share with members some arguments that were made in the brief
tabled by Mr. Hendrix and Mr. Leboeuf in an application for a
declaratory judgment. I dedicate these arguments to the Reform
members and hope they will listen carefully. They wrote:
They are considered to have the same rights and the same
obligations in their union. Together they have acquired
matrimonial property and therefore have a common heritage.
There is no doubt that when we live together for five, six,
eight or ten years we build a common heritage. This is
undeniable.
They wrote further:
They vowed respect, fidelity, help and assistance to each other.
If fidelity, respect and mutual assistance are attributes of a
heterosexual union, there is no reason to think that they are
not also attributes of homosexual unions.
They also said:
They lived together without interruption from the start of their
union.
Although there were no children, they have formed a family unit
since the start of their relationship, just like childless
married couples.
1815
I will conclude this part of my remarks by saying that
the co-applicants, just like heterosexual married couples,
established and maintained from the start of their shared life a
permanent family residence.
Why am I doing this? Because, in strict civil and legal terms,
there is no argument against the fact that two men or two women
may live in extremely similar unions that have the same
characteristics of heterosexual unions characterized by ties of
marriage.
Naturally what make the difference—and I respect that—are
religious convictions.
It is obvious that in the official line of the church, in its
official doctrine, there is no recognition of homosexual
marriages just as there is no recognition of divorce. Does
this mean that if the Reform Party insists on sticking to
strictly religious arguments it will have to have an
opposition day before the end of the present session in order to
have it acknowledged that divorce also cannot be recognized? If
one sticks to official church doctrine, divorce is something
reprehensible.
Hon. members can see where this type of argument, which seeks to
limit the debate to religious considerations, can lead.
My point is that. if men and women make a commitment to a union,
provide each other with support, are together and are happy
together in a free-will arrangement, if they share assets, if
they have a family home and define themselves as a family—what is
termed common repute—then in my opinion there is no reason
whatsoever not to recognize a marriage between two men or two
women.
If the principal spokespersons of the gay community were here
right now—which, as hon. members may know, means the gays in
three major centres, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal—I believe
they would agree with me that this is not an important debate
among them, that it is not a demand being made by the gay
community.
The fact remains that it is discriminatory to deny people access
to the institution of marriage and to recognize it as the sole
prerogative of the heterosexual community.
I hope that along the way we will understand and once and for
all the Reform Party members will rise in the House and admit
that their arguments are based on religious beliefs, which I
respect. However religious beliefs cannot be included in a bill
because any reference to God has to be in the plural. Religion
is a system of symbols that help us to understand the world.
As parliamentarians, we are well aware that the days of
religious monolithism are gone. The God of the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is not the God the Reform Party member
might invoke.
It is not the God that certain of our Muslim colleagues or some
of our colleagues from other religious denominations might call
on.
It is therefore not our place, as parliamentarians, to try to
limit debates to religious considerations given that religion
is a question of pluralism. If we set this argument aside
there is no reason not to recognize marriage and not to open
this institution up to same sex couples.
The solemnization of marriage remains a
provincial jurisdiction.
The basic conditions are the prerogative of the federal
government.
If the Reform Party had wanted to make a useful contribution, it
should have asked the House to vote on a motion to put marriage
back under the jurisdiction of the provinces, which are much
closer to any matters related to the family and family policy.
I think that would have been as useful a debate as the one moved
today.
1820
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There has been consultation among the parties, including a
meeting of the House leaders, and I think you would find unanimous
consent for some travel motions.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is
there agreement in the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move:
That eight members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food be authorized to travel to Paris, Brussels and
Strasbourg from October 9 to October 16, 1999, in order to
conduct some pre-World Trade Organization (WTO) consultations on
agriculture with their European counterparts and that two staff
members do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move:
That Monique Hébert, Research Officer of the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development, be authorized to
travel to Toronto, Ontario from June 21 to June 23, 1999, for the
purpose of participating in the Conference on: “A Tactical
Briefing on the New Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(C-32)”.
(Motion agreed to)
FINANCE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, in relation to the
prebudget consultations, the members of the Standing Committee on
Finance be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto,
Halifax and Quebec City during the fall of 1999 to hold regional
conferences and that the necessary staff do accompany the
committee.
(Motion agreed to)
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move:
That five members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
and three staff persons travel to Quebec City to attend the
Twentieth Annual Conference of the Canadian Council of Public
Accounts Committees from August 29 to August 31, 1999.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—MARRIAGE
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for
having made an important intervention in this debate and for the
passion of his convictions. He has made a special contribution
by demonstrating disagreement, contrary to the assertion of the
hon. attorney general who said this morning that there will be no
disagreement inside this House on this point.
Could the hon. member clarify for me that he does intend to
oppose this motion because he supports the idea of changing the
current legal definition of marriage to make it possible for
those other than heterosexual relations? Will he be opposing
this motion and will his party be supporting or opposing the
motion? I would like to understand what they intend to do.
Does he not agree as he started with his remarks that this is a
subject worth debating? Although he and I may disagree on the
conclusion, would he agree this is a subject appropriate for
public debate in this parliament?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I began by saying that I was
very happy to have this debate. The credit goes to the Reform
Party for proposing it.
However, I believe fundamentally that there are no reasons
beyond religious considerations that may not be included in a
bill. I believe that there are no reasons why the institution of
marriage, a social construction existing in laws and in the
civil code, should not now be open to homosexual couples.
1825
I do not believe that it exists as a divine right. I believe it
is also an intervention of the lawmaker. If it were not the
case it would make no sense for the Reform Party to be
proposing a motion such the one before us now.
We are indeed happy to have this debate and we do believe this
should be discussed among parliamentarians. However, I hope that,
with vigour, parliamentarians will reject this motion.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have been waiting all day for a chance to make a few
comments. I realize a lot of other people would like to do that.
Perhaps we will have to extend the debate.
Some of the criticism we have received as Reformers is that
there are more important things to talk about. We are talking
about the family, the fundamental building block of society. It
is necessary that we discuss this and send a clear signal to the
courts.
I want to read from an article written by Lorne Gunter in the
Edmonton Journal. The title is “Cohabitation costly for
the taxpayer”. He wrote:
—studies consistently find that 80 to 85 per cent of couples who
start out by living together fail to make it through life
together. Among couples who never lived together before wedding
one another, the failure rate is under 20 per cent. Still, what
gives anyone else the right to suggest common-law marriages are
wrong? Just one thing: the cost of cleaning up the wreckage.
Children whose parents' relationship breaks down are much more
likely to underachieve at school and in life. They are nearly
twice as likely to drop out, and girls are nearly three times as
likely to get pregnant before leaving their teens and far more
likely to have abortions. Suicides are higher, illegal drug use
is greater and the incidence of `getting into trouble with the
law' is nearly six times more. Simple marital breakdown is the
leading cause of social problems, perhaps the leading cause. So
because common-law relationships are so prone to breakdown they
contribute disproportionately to the social ills that everyone
must live with and subsidize.
In other words, we are talking about the family. We are talking
about children. We are talking about the fundamental building
block of society, not all the other things that people are trying
to bring into this discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would first like to reassure
the member that I was not born on the planet Mars, but rather in
a family I visit frequently, that loves me and that I love and
with whom I have a growth and affectionate relationship that is
very important.
I do not see the rationality of his remarks. I think that,
whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual, we are all born
in a family. When the member comes out without much warning and
says that marriage is the main cause of divorce, I think there
would be broad consensus in the House for accepting that.
I think there is a problem with his definition of family. I
would be grateful if he allowed our colleague from Scarborough
Southwest to ask me a question. I know he has a lot of
expertise, not on gay issues but on the question of marriage.
[English]
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, despite the hon. member's previous comment which of
course was unnecessary, I do want to compliment him for his
passion on this issue. I know that he has very serious concerns
in this matter.
I want to compliment him in particular because he has been
consistent throughout his entire career here in the House of
Commons in his position that this is the place to decide these
issues. He has consistently indicated that it is the House of
Commons that is to decide these issues, not the courts of Canada.
I want to applaud him for that because he has been very
consistent on it and I agree with him completely on that issue.
I want to ask him very clearly because he did not give an answer
to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. The official
government position is that the term marriage is defined as the
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I
would say that his speech was the perfect reason that we have to
vote on this motion this evening.
I ask him very clearly, if the government's position is that the
definition of marriage is clear in law, does he accept that law?
1830
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
do not believe that one can say that just because a definition
exists in the text of a law that definition is permanent and the
fact that it is in the legislation prevents any contemplation of
doing otherwise. That is what is called evolution.
There were no employment insurance benefits in the law 115 years
ago. Now, however, there are. The right to divorce did not
exist 90 years ago. Now it does.
What I am saying is that I agree with my colleague that this is
a debate we need to engage in, but I do not agree with him that
the institution of marriage must be exclusive to the heterosexual
community. I think it must also—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I regret to interrupt the
hon. member.
It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
motion.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The next question is
on the main motion as amended.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Pursuant to Standing
Order 81(18), the recorded division stands deferred until 10 p.m.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When we were discussing the amendment, I heard two or
three no votes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I really did
not hear any noes at that time.
* * *
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PARLIAMENT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the President of the Treasury Board)
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $30,051,000, under
PARLIAMENT—Senate—Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 (less the amount voted
in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
1835
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the motion
before the House and the objection raised by some hon. members in
connection with the vote for the Senate program expenditures for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
I would like to use the time I have been given to try to expand
the debate and to describe the context surrounding this
initiative by the government.
First, I think we need to draw a distinction between two aspects
of the debate: On the one hand, the place of the Senate within
our parliamentary system and, on the other, the financial
requirement in connection with the exercise of that role. It is
one thing to promote the improvement or even the abolition of the
Senate, but the issue before us today is rather whether the
Senate ought to obtain the moneys it needs to fulfill its mandate
under the constitution.
In other words, I think it would be wrong to block this vote
simply because one favours improving or, even for those who want
that, abolishing the Canadian Senate. Let us all agree on one
thing. The current Senate is an institution which has its
foundations set down in the constitution and is therefore
fundamental to the functioning of the Parliament of Canada. It
has a constitutionally mandated role to play. Therefore, it must
have the resources it needs to fulfil that role.
The Senate, in its current form, may not be the most popular
there is within our system of government in the eyes of some. It
is easy for members to sidetrack the debate with knee-jerk
speeches about its usefulness and its legitimacy. It may be that
changes could be made to the current Senate so as to enhance its
legitimacy and make it more representative. My party has
advocated such changes in the recent past.
Nevertheless, there is now, and I do not think it is any secret,
no consensus as to what those changes should be and how they
should be made neither among Canadians nor within parliament. In
the meantime, the Senate must continue to fulfil the role it has
been assigned, and it is the government's role to ensure that it
has the means to do so and that includes an adequate supply
process.
I am not surprised by the criticism that has been made by some
hon. members who have opposed this vote. For those who feel that
the current Senate is ineffective, any vote for the Senate
expenditures, no matter what the amount, will always be for them
too much. It is easy to question the relevance of a vote for the
Senate program expenditures, but it must be emphasized that these
votes are essential for our parliamentary system to function and
that the members of the House have a responsibility to concur in
them.
Our government has made modernizing our federation one of its
top priorities. We have made our system of government more
efficient in many areas and have ensured that government programs
and co-operation agreements concluded with our provincial
partners better serve the interests of the community. Indeed,
co-operation between the two orders of government is an inherent
part of our system of government.
I am dwelling on this aspect of the debate because the reason
the hon. members have opposed this vote is because they believe
the Senate ought to be reformed or abolished. We all know that
there is no consensus on this issue among Canadians, as I have
already stated. Furthermore, the issue can be resolved only
through a constitutional amendment. You don't amend the Senate
by cutting the supply. Few members of the House can seriously
claim that the current context lends itself to such an initiative
of amending the constitution.
More specifically, under section 42 of the Constitution Act,
1982, reforming the Senate would require the consent of at least
seven provinces representing no less than 50% of Canada's
population.
That is the prerequisite. It is not cutting supply.
1840
To then abolish the Senate, for those who think that is a proper
course of action, the government would likely have to comply with
section 41 of the Constitution Act, which requires the consent of
the House of Commons, the 10 provincial legislative assemblies
and the Senate itself which would have to vote itself out of
existence. That is the prerequisite for doing that under our
constitution.
I do not think I am going out on a limb in saying that the
constitutional debate is not a priority for Canadians today. I
was in my riding all last weekend and amending the constitution
was not the favourite issue raised by my constituents. They had
many other topics in mind. A grand total of zero people have
raised it with me in the last several months. I think we can all
agree that this is not a scenario that could be really taken
seriously in the short term.
Our government is not opposed to Senate improvement, but we have
to be realistic and operate in the context of how things really
are. In terms of constitutional amendments, when the population
has asked for those we have provided and have accommodated that,
be it the issue of schools in Quebec, the issue of amending the
Constitution to recognize the linguistic duality of New
Brunswick, even the school situation in Newfoundland and several
other such changes that had to be made.
[Translation]
The program expenditures in the main estimates for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 2000 total $30,051,000. This may perhaps
strike the members with objections to the allocation of credits
as a lot, but I would ask them what other choice does the
government have under the circumstances?
If the Senate seems to them to be an inefficient institution,
and they have every right to think so, how does restricting the
credits it needs to operate render it any more efficient? Of
course, the answer is obvious.
I will go still further. This debate provides me with the
opportunity to rectify certain points.
The Senate, in its current form, already fills an important
role, which too many of our citizens are unaware of. The Senate
committees perform an important function in our legislative
process by clarifying and improving legislation from the House
of Commons.
We need only think of Bill C-49, which was before the House on
Friday last and which will come back in a few days. The Senate
has made some constructive amendments, and we all realize it, if
we are prepared to admit it.
The changes proposed by the senators to these bills have
frequently improved them. I have just given one example. Our
Senate colleagues' contribution in clarifying certain laws means
time saved for the courts. This too must not forgotten.
All too often parliamentarians say that it is the role of this
House to legislate not that of the courts.
We have a House that helps us legislate and clarify the law and
some people want to abolish it. The effect of this would
probably be to transfer even more powers to the courts, which we
say every day that we do not want.
A number of senators have vast experience in varied fields, such
as law, the world of business, public administration and so on.
I am thinking of people such as Senator Eugene Whelan who will
retire in a few days. He is an eminent Canadian who served as
minister of agriculture for many years. He is a
parliamentarian with three or four decades of experience. This
is the calibre of people they are. There is also Frank
Mahovlich, a world famous personality and a member of the
Senate. Senator Wilbert Keon is a doctor with a worldwide
reputation.
I have named only a few.
This is the sort of person who represents us in the other place.
We must not forget it either.
1845
The experience of these senators becomes very important for all
Canadians when it comes to crafting legislation that is a
faithful reflection of Canadians' needs and aspirations.
Obviously this cannot be readily measured, but one thing is
certain and that is that it is part of the legislative process
and part of our reality in Canada.
Furthermore, on several occasions senators have been called
upon to look specifically at such problems as poverty,
unemployment, inflation, the status of the elderly and science
policy. There is even a Senate committee that is studying
monetary issues right now, and the list goes on. The reports
these studies produce have had an impact on the resulting
legislation.
Since we are now debating the granting of supplies to the
Senate, I would even go so far as to say that these studies have
enabled Canadians to realize important savings since they have
made it unnecessary to establish royal commissions of inquiry.
God knows how expensive these commissions can be, I remember
some. The senators are already being paid, already have
staff and, most important of all, they have an extensive
institutional memory. They have contributed much to this
process and will continue to do so.
[English]
In conclusion, I would like to ask the House to support the
estimates of the other place.
[Translation]
The government's position on Senate reform is simple. We
support the idea of such reform but when the circumstances are
right, when there is first of all a consensus to that effect
among Canadians and when all partners in our federation are
resolved to move ahead with such a project.
We also believe that such a reform must be carried out in a
comprehensive and considered manner, not piecemeal and
certainly not on the fly as certain opposition parties too
often suggest in the House.
In the meantime, our government is pursuing the same policy, one
of common sense.
It appoints as senators people recognized for their competence,
people wishing to contribute with us to the well-being of
Canadian society.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I have a couple of questions for the government House leader who
appears to be running for a position in the Senate with the
speech he made today.
He says that there is no consensus on the Senate issue. I want
to say that he is right in one way but I think he is wrong in the
other way. I want him to concede that tonight.
There is a division in the country as to whether the Senate
should be reformed or abolished. According to the polling it is
roughly 50:50. According to the polling, only about 5% of the
people support the existing Senate. About 95% think the existing
Senate is not the proper institution for a democracy. I want to
know whether or not the minister recognizes the reality that
about 5% of the people support the existing Senate.
The minister also talked about giving the Senate supply. The
Senate got an extra 10% last year. This year it wants another
6.1%. That is 16.1% over two years.
I look across at the minister in charge of homelessness and ask
her whether or not her budget was raised 16.1% over two years for
the homeless in the country. I know it has not. I know she is
struggling in cabinet for money for the homeless.
Let us look at the health budget, the education budget, the
agricultural budget or any other budget. None of them have been
raised by 16.1% over two years. My friend from Sarnia tells me
that the budget of the House of Commons is going up by around 2%
this year. The Senate wants three times as much as what is going
to the House of Commons.
Since the minister is responding tonight on behalf of the
government on the very important issue of the other place, how
can he possibly justify an increase of 16.1% over two years?
1850
I want him to answer that question and to admit today that there
is a consensus in the country that the other place is not working
and is a blight on democracy. It is not elected. It is not
accountable. It is not democratic. Over 90% of the Canadian
people do not support the existing Senate. The debate is what to
do with it. However they do not support the existing Senate.
There is a consensus on that.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the
attention of the hon. member to two points. The second point he
raised was about the issue of supply, the amount that we are
voting tonight. The hon. member talked about the increases this
year and last year. He forgot about the decrease the year prior
because it is not convenient for his argument.
When the hon. member talks about increases perhaps he should
remember that there were decreases in the past. He made a
comparison between the two houses of parliament. If he goes back
over the last number of years he will find that his argument is
inaccurate.
He raised a question on another facet of supply with respect to
what this money will be used for. I remind the hon. member
across the way that a portion of it is the increase that we voted
on in the House regarding the compensation for parliamentarians
in both houses. I will not reflect upon that vote. We voted and
that is done. Once we vote for something we have to furnish the
funds to accommodate that on which we voted. It sounds like a
rather elementary proposition.
The next part of that component is the one involving the
collective agreements of the employees. I know that the NDP is
not always together with the unions. Sometimes they have
differences. In this case there is one.
Perhaps the hon. member thinks that the employees of the Senate,
having duly signed a collective agreement, should not get their
paycheques. He can take it up with the union people. That is
his privilege. Meanwhile he will know that those two
expenditures, one that we voted on in the House and the other
being the collective agreement of the employees, form the
majority of the increase. He knows that. I have told him that
in answers in the House on several occasions.
His first proposition was about reforming the Senate. He said
that many Canadians would prefer if senators were chosen
differently than the way they are now. Me too. What is the
point? The point is not whether the hon. member and I want to
choose senators differently. The point is that he wants to
abolish the Senate and I would like to see it elected.
Some provinces want the Senate abolished. Some want it elected.
Some want to change the number of senators a jurisdiction has and
so on. Some members across the way say they want a triple E
Senate. They want the same number of senators for P.E.I. as for
British Columbia. They have a right to think that way. I do not
happen to think that is proper and equitable.
There has to be some other mechanism of arriving at that. Every
province in Canada has a different definition of what that should
be. The provincial premiers cannot agree among themselves on a
proposition, and the hon. member knows it.
Yes, I agree with him. I would prefer to see senators chosen by
another system when the constitution is amended. That is not the
point. The point is until it is amended there is only one way of
naming senators, and that is by the Prime Minister choosing them
and choosing high calibre people, which he does all the time.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
since 1993 there have been 34 appointments by our current Prime
Minister to the Senate and there are currently four vacancies.
That makes for a total of 38 seats.
If there were an election in 2001, another 14 seats would be
available for a total of 52, the majority of seats in the Senate
since the Prime Minister has taken office.
1855
What has changed since some of these quotes were made? The
first one reads:
I...support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a
restructured and revitalized upper chamber can give Albertans a
voice in the governance of Canada. If elected Liberal leader, I
pledge to work for a Senate that is elected, that has legislative
powers of its own, and contains strong representation from all
regions of Canada.
That was at the Liberal leadership on June 23, 1990. The next
one reads in part:
That appeared in Hansard of September 24, 1991. The next
one reads:
The Liberal government in two years will make it (Senate)
elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen.
This was in a speech to 400 delegates at the annual general
meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party in
1990. The next one reads:
That was a statement on February 2, 1990 to the Toronto Star.
The next one reads:
As I said before, and repeat, reform of the Senate is extremely
important. I believe in it.
That can be found in Hansard of May 14, 1991. On February
1, 1997, the next one is:
The last one reads:
I know that in western Canada they were disappointed that there
was not, there's the Senate, because they wanted to have an equal
Senate and an elected Senate and I thought it was a good thing to
do.
That was on CBC Prime Time News on December 29, 1992.
Those are all quotes from our current Prime Minister. What has
changed?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I agree with everything
the hon. member has just said. He has quoted the Prime Minister
so obviously I agree with what he just said.
The Prime Minister has been quite forthright. He says that he
favours Senate reform. The hon. member across the way has just
told us what the Prime Minister said in 1991 about an equitable
Senate.
I campaigned on that in 1992, door to door in the rain, trying
to get people to vote for the Charlottetown accord. In my riding
we won it by almost 65%, the largest majority outside Quebec from
Ontario all the way to the west coast of Canada.
Where was the hon. member and his colleagues? They were working
against trying to get that Senate reform at the same time as I
working for it.
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to ask for unanimous consent to allow the government House
leader to accept one more question, if possible.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the co-operation of the government
House leader in this regard.
When I was a candidate in the 1993 election I went door to door
with a petition calling for the abolition of the Senate. At that
time I received about 39% of the vote. Some 99% of the people to
whom I spoke on doorsteps over a six month period signed the
petition, even though most of them did not vote for the NDP at
that time.
I want the government House leader to understand that this is a
very serious issue with respect to the Senate and the supply of
money to the Senate.
Part of this supply will go toward the pay expenses, travel
expenses and benefits of two senators, Senator Bernston and
Senator Cogger who are convicted felons. How long will the
government support paying salaries and expenses to these two
convicted felons?
Will it allow this happen for two years as in Mr. Cogger's case,
or three, four or five more years? Or, will the government take
some action to at least suspend them and suspend all pay and
benefits until such time as the long appeals which could drag out
for years and years take place?
1900
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the first question the
hon. member raised was the issue of abolishing the Senate. I
fundamentally disagree with the proposition of abolishing the
Senate. As far as I am concerned, improving the Senate, electing
it and all of these things, once we can get that consensus in
Canada, is the right approach. Abolishing it outright is a
different story. Personally I do not favour that. We would be
the only federated country on earth without a bicameral
legislature and that is wrong.
The hon. member across the way has just suggested a proper
comparison is Russia. Let the facts speak for themselves.
On the other issue the member raised of whether it is the
position of the government to protect, or whatever words he used,
two Conservative senators, and I will leave out the other
expletives, that is not for me to say. The courts, the appeal
process and so on will deal with that. As to whether I support
Conservative senators, I do not support Conservative anything,
let alone Conservative senators so that should be quite clear.
If the hon. member wants to ask the leader of the Conservative
Party if he thinks the members of his caucus should no longer be
members of his caucus, he is quite free to do that. Of course he
will have to do that outside the House because the leader of the
Conservative Party does not sit in the House at the present time
and perhaps never will, I do not know. That is a matter to be
taken up in another forum, in the lobby or some other place, but
obviously not in the House of Commons at the present time.
To repeat, I do not favour abolishing the Senate. I favour
improving it. That is what I believe Canadians want. Do I favour
Conservative senators, MPs, Conservative period? No.
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to extend questions and
comments for 10 minutes since we have the rare privilege of
debating with such a respected and knowledgeable minister in the
House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to proceed in this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will get this speech under way.
I would like to acknowledge the eloquent defence of the Senate
by the government House leader, but unfortunately it was not just
a defence of the Senate, it was a defence of the status quo, do
nothing Liberal government. We already heard in speeches by the
Prime Minister how he was going to do something about the Senate.
Now that the Liberals are in power, they do nothing about the
Senate.
We have to go all the way back to 1867, to the time the
constitution of Canada was written and which we are unable to
change because of circumstances that seem to be beyond our
control. There are two things about the Senate. It is not
elected and every Canadian knows that. The other thing the
constitution has required of senators since 1867 is that they be
able to demonstrate a net worth in excess of $4,000. That is
nothing today, but in 1867 $4,000 was a heck of a lot of money.
If candidates could not come up with $4,000, they could not sit
in the Senate. That was the magic dividing line between the
commons, which is everybody, and the elite, the powerful, the
moneyed who could sit in the other place.
When the constitution was written in 1867 it was modelled on the
example of Westminster in London, England. It had the House of
Lords, the aristocracy, the rich, the powerful, the people who
inherited the money from generation to generation and the House
of Commons, the plebes who had to struggle to survive under the
leadership of the aristocracy.
The aristocracy said they did not mind giving most of the power
to the House of Commons, but they wanted the sober second
thought. They were basically saying “If they stomp on us too
hard, we are going to slow them right down, if not put a stop to
it. We do not mind the House of Commons thinking it has all the
power, but sober second thought means if it is going to trample
on us too much, we will shut it down”.
1905
The Senate is this age old tradition of the aristocracy, the
rich and the powerful keeping a short leash on the rest of the
country. That is the reason we in the Reform Party say things
have got to change.
I was glad to hear the government House leader say that he is
all for an elected Senate. This has got to be called progress.
We now have an admission by someone on the government side right
here in the House on the record saying that he favours an elected
Senate. I can see by the smiles on the other side that perhaps
they do not all agree. We know where the NDP comes from.
Progress may be glacial in its speed, but progress is being made.
The Senate needs reform. The government could provide the
impetus for reform if it wanted to. Obviously, while the
rhetoric of the Prime Minister says he would like reform, he has
no intention of instituting reform, hence the impasse. The
Reform Party has said let us move on Senate reform. The
government talks about Senate reform. The NDP says to abolish
the Senate. Maybe one day we will make progress.
The Senate is one area where a lot of money is wasted, but there
are other areas where money is wasted. I can think of no finer
example of waste than the National Film Board. The National Film
Board makes all kinds of films, some about the Senate, some about
other things.
I published a waste report today. It is available on the
Internet. I do not have my website address here, but the report
is available on the Internet and if anybody wants to get a copy
of it they can find it.
I brought out some interesting little things on how the National
Film Board spends taxpayers' money. We are talking about
taxpayers' money today as this is the business of supply. In the
House of Commons later on this evening we are going to vote on
about $160 billion worth of spending. We started the debate at
6:30 p.m. and we will be wrapping it up at 10:00 p.m. In three
and a half hours we are going to get the job done, all $160
billion. There will be close, analytical inspection. Every dime
is going to be checked over in three and a half hours, if you can
believe that, Mr. Speaker. I do not.
Let us look at a couple of things at the National Film Board.
Democracy à la Maude, a profile of Maude Barlow and her
crusade for social justice and economic sovereignty as the head
of the 100,000 member Council of Canadians. We spent
$288,336.52, do not forget the cents, on a profile of Maude
Barlow.
The 100,000 Canadians who belong to the Council of Canadians are
going to say this is great stuff. But for every member of that
organization, I am quite sure I could find 10 others who would
say it is a waste of money, which is why I put it in my waste
report because I let Canadians judge. It is their money that is
being spent. When I ask them if this is good value for money, or
is it a waste of money, they say it is a waste of money.
What else do we have in here? And So To Bed. We spend a
lot of time in our beds, not all of it sleeping, but I am not
going to get into that debate. We spent $249,007.75, do not
forget the $7.75, on a delightful look at the evolution and the
history of the bed. I have to admit that I have not seen the
movie, but if we are going to take a delightful look at the
evolution and the history of the bed without talking about what
people do in the bed, I do not know what is in this movie, but my
imagination starts to go on a little bit, especially when we have
been talking about same sex benefits and everything else recently
in the last few weeks. There has been Bill C-78, same sex
benefits and conjugal relationships, and now we have beds. When
we bring it all together our imaginations can run riot.
An hon. member: Tell us more.
Mr. John Williams: He wants to hear more. Perhaps I
should not. You will shut me down for being
unparliamentary.
How about Frank the Wrabbit. This is interesting.
We must not let our imagination run off here. This is a film
about how humans and rabbits formulate and justify beliefs. How
much? $194,855.30.
1910
How about rats. We will go from rabbits on to rats. Rats,
a film about people who in some capacity are linked together by
rats. The film explores the netherworld of the sewers in Toronto
seen as a metaphor for the unconscious. Great stuff. The
National Film Board was so enthusiastic that it threw $140,000
behind this effort.
I have not found a Canadian yet who agreed with the National
Film Board, but that is how the money is being spent and it goes
on.
Strange Invaders, a portrayal of a happy couple who feel
blessed by the sudden arrival of a small child—is that not
wonderful—until they realize the child is an alien from
outer space. Trash. Absolute, unadulterated trash which cost us
$71,135.
Then we are back into pornography. A few weeks ago we had
Bubbles Galore which cost us $55,000. The movie did win an
award. It won the best film award at the Freakzone International
Festival of Trash Cinema. It is right up there as the worst of
trash or the best of trash, whichever way one wants it.
Now there is Stolen Moments, a film which combines the
hidden aspects of lesbian history and of contemporary lesbian
life and culture featuring well known lesbians for $40,000
hard-earned Canadian taxpayers' dollars down the drain.
My waste report goes on.
In 1997 the auditor general published a report about the Small
Business Loans Act. He said this was going to cost us big time.
The reason it was going to cost us big time was that the Liberal
government increased the amount of money a person could borrow to
100% of the cost of what the person was trying to buy. For
example, if someone wanted to buy a large piece of equipment
costing $100,000, every prudent lender not just in the country
but in the world would say “Put your money down and maybe we
will help you to finance the rest”. But no, the government said
the lender would give the person 100% of the cash and he or she
would not have to put in a nickel. It was that simple. Is this
good business? It is going to cost the taxpayer a bundle.
In the province of Quebec a franchisor had this great idea about
selling hot dogs. To set up a hot dog franchise, between $25,000
and $50,000 had to be paid for the privilege of getting the
franchise right to sell hot dogs. The franchisor put this money
in his pocket. He collected $2.15 million, thank you very much,
and he is gone. But the money he got had been borrowed from the
bank and secured by the Small Business Loans Act. The taxpayer
ended up paying over $3 million. One has to wonder if this thing
was even legitimate.
Prudent lending? We have to question the competence of the bank
manager. Obviously the franchisor had got the measure of this
bank manager and convinced him it was a hot deal for hot dogs.
One branch alone gave out 30 of these franchises and they all
went bad. We picked up the tab. The auditor general told us
about it in 1997 and the fruits are coming home.
It goes on. There are computers with legs on them. In my last
waste report I talked about computers with legs. Now we find
that even if the computers disappear, even if we know that they
are stolen, nothing happens. It is not even reported to the
police. They only report it to the police when they have the
criminal by the neck. When they know who the criminal is, they
tell the cops to arrest the fellow. If they do not know who it
is, they say “Well, we guess we do not know who it is”. They do
not want any disruption in the office by bringing in the police
to say they are losing their computers.
We are paying for that. The taxpayers are paying for that. We
are paying for the Senate. We are paying for this. We are
paying for waste. We are paying for mismanagement.
We are paying through the nose. The House leader gave a great
and eloquent defence of the status quo, but we also have a great
and eloquent defence of the status quo of mismanagement and waste
when it could so easily be tackled.
1915
This very afternoon in the public accounts committee, which I
chair, we had officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development appear before us. The auditor general had
pointed out some serious problems in that department, about how
we are spending $6 billion a year through the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Health Canada and so on,
which is going right into the pockets of the first nations
people. I have no problem helping them, but I would like to
help them get up on their own feet.
When I read in the paper that some chiefs are collecting a
salary in excess of $167,000 a year, tax free, and the people
they are supposed to govern have absolutely nothing, and DIAND
does not seem to care about it, and they admitted as much in
committee this afternoon, I get a little upset. That taxpayer
money is going straight into the coffers of the people who are
supposed to administer it on behalf of the people they govern.
They are robbing them blind and taking it for themselves. It is
criminal. It cannot be allowed to continue. Yet the Liberals
continue to allow it. We wonder why we keep having to pay more
and more money in that direction. We need accountability.
In democracy two fundamental things are openness and
transparency, where the books and the records are open for public
inspection. We have had the situation in the last few weeks with
the Prime Minister and whatever has been going on with the grants
and so on in his riding. Openness and transparency are
absolutely fundamental to a healthy democracy.
I asked the departmental officials this afternoon why it is that
the financial statements of these first nations reserves are not
made public. I got the answer. It is because they may have a
small proprietorship or business, or whatever, and when they
prepare consolidated financial statements that contain, built in
there somewhere, buried in the numbers, revenues and expenditures
pertaining to private business, then the whole thing has to be
kept under wraps. The Privacy Act prevails, which says it cannot
be made public.
Yet when I asked them if they could not separate government from
private business, as we do in in the rest of Canada, as we do in
the rest of the world, they said “Perhaps we could think about
it so that we would be able to publish the financial statements
of first nations which consider themselves to be government”.
DIAND considers them to be government, and yet DIAND tolerates a
situation where their financial statements and records and
mismanagement are kept under wraps because of one little quirk
that could be fixed any time the government wanted. The status
quo is disgusting on Senate reform, in the way the Liberals
handle first nations, in the way they tolerate waste and
mismanagement and in the way that the whole government conducts
its business.
Back in 1995 when we were voting on supply, as we will be voting
on supply later this evening, we had about 150 votes to go. We
thought we were going to be here all night and well into the next
morning. We reached a compromise with the government that we
would form a committee to address the situation, to bring some
sanity and modern thinking, some accountability and governance
into the management of the estimates.
The deputy whip, who was the chair of the committee, myself, a
member of the Bloc and others worked on a committee and produced
a report on the business of supply. It called for three
fundamental things. First, that we as parliamentarians be given
the right to move money from within a department from initiative
a to initiative b if we felt that was appropriate
because we are parliamentarians and we should have that kind of
authority.
We oversee government. Second, that we create an estimates
committee to review on an ongoing, year round basis the estimates
and the proposed spending of government. Third, that we
introduce what is called program evaluation to look at the $100
billion in spending that will not be voted on this evening.
1920
Program evaluation asks four fundamental questions of all
program spending. It asks what is the public policy that the
program is trying to achieve, which is fairly simple and yet it
does not exist. Canadians say they cannot believe that the
public policy of programs is not articulated.
Second, it goes on to ask how well this public policy is being
addressed. Once that is articulated we can measure it. However,
the government does not want to measure it. It just thinks that
as long as it blithely spends the money and throws money at the
wall some will stick. Waste and mismanagement is everywhere.
Surely we could make progress.
It goes on to say that we should look at the efficiency of
program delivery. Can we achieve the same results in a different
way?
After two years of hard work we finally got the government
response to the committee's all-party suggestions and
recommendations, which it dismissed out of hand and said “No, we
cannot change. It is too much of an effort to change. We do not
want to bring accountability into government. We do not want to
have to answer to Canadians about how their money is being
spent”.
That is about the same response we had from the government House
leader on his defence of the Senate. It was a defence of the
status quo. The response to the business of supply was a defence
of the status quo. “We do not want to change, even though we
know how to change. We can change and we know that change will
save billions of taxpayer dollars. It will give a more focused
program delivery”. The government says it does not even want to
hear about it. It reminds us of the three monkeys: hear no
evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
The government has the responsibility to manage the country. It
has the responsibility to govern the country and it is abdicating
that responsibility every day.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the hon. member who I know is very interested
in making sure that the books are frugal, that they are well
kept, that we do not waste money and so on.
I know that many in his party advocate the idea of a triple E
Senate: elected, equal and effective. Prior to the
Charlottetown accord a lot of us took a very serious look at that
idea. Theoretically it is an interesting idea.
There was a compromise by the three parties in the House of
Commons at that time that we advocate an elected Senate based on
proportional representation. That went to the first ministers,
who changed what we had recommended. They came up with a
different formula for an elected Senate, which would have had
some powers, but it would not have been very effective, and there
was some equality in it. Of course, that was turned down in the
referendum. It would have taken the unanimous consent of the
provinces, in any event, to implement it.
The hon. member is a frugal man and wants to look after the
public purse. We spend roughly $60 million a year on the
existing Senate. In all these years, try as we might, we have
never had a solution and a consensus as to how we would reform
the other place, which has to be done through the amending
formula.
How long do we go on trying? It is a bit like the dog chasing
its tail. When does it stop? It goes around and around in a
circle, and every time it goes around we spend another $60
million on a House that is not elected, not democratic and not
accountable. In fact, the chairman of its internal economy
committee would not even appear before the industry committee of
the House of Commons to be accountable for the expenditures of
the Senate.
With great respect to the ideas he has espoused in the past
about a triple E Senate, how long would he suggest we keep on
waiting before we try the other alternative of just abolishing it
altogether and saving that $60 million?
1925
I think we may be stuck in the end with either the status quo,
which we have had for over 130 years, or building a national
consensus, which is growing toward abolition.
I remember during Meech Lake and even the Charlottetown accord
that support for abolition, according to the polls, was around
21% or 23%. The hon. member from Sarnia is confirming that.
About a year ago, it was about 45%. About 45% want to reform it
but, again, people who want to reform it have all kinds of
different formulae. Bert Brown wants triple E. Somebody else
wants one E, which is elected. Somebody else wants the house of
the provinces or the house of the federation. One may want more
powers. One may want fewer powers. The hon. member from Calgary
may want a mixture of powers. We could never find consensus.
How long do we let this dog chase its tail before we say “Let
us put a stop to it”? The hon. member is a watchdog on finances
and I anticipate his response.
Mr. John Williams: How long do we wait, Mr. Speaker? In
the greater scheme of things, the Reform Party is a very young
party, having been around for only 12 years.
The idea of Senate reform, by and large, started with the Reform
Party, which brought it to the national stage and to the national
agenda. In 12 years we have moved it from the idea that a few
people agreed with to the national agenda.
As the House knows, our party has gone from being strictly an
idea to today when it is sitting in the House as the official
opposition. I know they are trembling over there because the day
will come when we will trade places. At that time the hon.
member from Qu'Appelle may find that he does not have to wait any
more and that the time will have arrived for Senate reform.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I must
say that I enjoyed, for the most part, the comments of my hon.
colleague from the Reform Party in terms of what he was
espousing, the concept of a triple E Senate.
With respect to having the upper chamber elected, for me that is
a non-starter. If we asked, most Canadians would say that if
there is going to be an upper chamber then it should be an
elected chamber.
Mr. John Williams: He is a Tory.
Mr. John Herron: That is not exactly a unifying kind of
comment that I am hearing from my hon. colleague. I am sure he
actually shares some of the sentiments I am trying to express, so
I would hope that he would give me the courtesy to be able to
express those very concerns.
The hon. member believes that the origin of Senate reform
started in 1987, out of the blue, and that nobody was even
concerned with the fact that the Senate was not elected until
1987 when the Reform Party started. Would he think in his heart
of hearts that there were possibly other individuals in this
country who espoused an elected Senate prior to 1987? I would
like to tell him that when I was in university I was one
individual who espoused that.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, we have to think about
these non-starters. The Reform Party, as I said, coalesced
opinion in the country to bring the idea of Senate reform to the
public agenda.
The hon. member talks about the fact that he was on to Senate
reform a long time ago, but his leader sat in the prime
minister's chair in the House and did nothing about Senate
reform. His party was in power numerous times in the past and
did nothing about Senate reform.
The current Prime Minister is on record on numerous occasions
before he became Prime Minister as saying that he advocated
Senate reform, but he blithely forgets about it now.
As I said, we are making progress because now we have the
government House leader also saying that he favours an elected
Senate.
I know the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle thinks that
co-opting one government member every five years is pretty slow
progress, and I have to agree, but if we change places I can see
it moving a lot faster.
In response to the hon. member's comment, he has to be serious
and recognize that the Reform Party raised the agenda of Senate
reform.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pose a challenge to my hon. colleague. I am going
to cite two quotes and I am going to ask the hon. member to tell
me who made these statements.
A certain individual who sits in the House said on February 2,
1990 in front of a reporter with the Windsor Star and 600
people in Edmonton: “I am not interested in patronage because I
am a Liberal”. This same individual, on page 196 of a book
entitled Straight from the Heart, published in 1985, said:
I didn't want to be trapped in making decisions on patronage,
local contracts, and appointments that cause so much friction and
bad blood.
1930
I do not want to be too vague on this. I also want to say that
this individual who sits in the House has appointed a former
Liberal member of Parliament, William Rompkey; has appointed a
former Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island, Catherine
Callbeck; has appointed another former MP, Jean Robert Gauthier;
has appointed former Liberal candidates in New Brunswick for the
Liberal leadership race there; and, has appoint prominent people
in the Trudeau cabinet. The list goes on to include prominent
B.C. Liberal organizers who are golfing and business buddies of
this individual who sits right across the House.
Now that I have given this information, I would like to see if
the hon. member can guess who that individual is.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, when one is on national
television it is very hard to be posed with these very tough
questions without any preparation whatsoever. However, I will
make a stab at it. As members know, I did not grow up in this
country so I do not know my history, but I think I know who the
hon. member is referring to. Am I correct in saying that it is
the member for Saint-Maurice, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister?
Mr. Rob Anders: It was that obvious.
Mr. John Williams: I got it right. Hallelujah, one for
me.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
from the beginning of this evening we were told that this is not
a debate about Senate reform or Senate abolition, and I agree.
This is a debate about the supply motion. In about two and a
half hours we are going to start voting on those supply motions.
The first item we are going to vote on is the $30,051,000 which
is the allocation for the Senate of Canada.
We are being told that the Senate is a legitimate body. Legally,
that is absolute correct. The Senate of Canada today is legally
a legitimate body. It is half of the Parliament of Canada. The
Senate of Canada today is politically an illegitimate body, and
that is what is creating the clash here. There is a clash in a
sense between the two solitudes, one at this end of the building
called the House of Commons, and the other at the red chamber,
the other place.
What we are being asked to pass judgment on today by voting for
these estimates is, in my opinion, what is reasonable and what is
correct. If we flash back 132 years, we will know that when the
Senate was created it was created by the British parliament after
negotiations with our Fathers of Confederation who were beholden
to the British House of Commons.
Out of that process came two chambers, the Senate and the House
of Commons, the Senate being the mirror image, or the clone of
the House of Lords and being populated with the elite of this
country, and that was true in 1867. The Senate was better
educated, more worldly and more outward looking. By and large,
senators were better off. That was very acceptable. They were
socially and educationally legitimate and they were, in a sense,
politically legitimate having regard to 1867.
We were, by and large, a society which was trying to emulate in
its governance the British system which had a House of Lords and
a House of Commons. Let us consider that in 1867 the House of
Commons, this very place, was populated by people who were less
educated, were perhaps a little rough around the edges, were less
outward looking and were in fact what we would call today very
provincial people.
1935
If we flash ahead 132 years, much has changed in the country. In
1867 it was thought that the Senate would be a check. It would
be the brakes on the House of Commons. It would be the brakes on
the excesses of the House of Commons. It would be the
constitutional arbiter of the House of Commons because at that
time, being a new country, we were beginning to explore what were
the divisions of powers and what were the rights of the federal
government versus the rights of the provincial governments. The
Senate was there to be a constitutional court, a constitutional
check on this place called the House of Commons.
We had no supreme court in 1867. That would not come until the
days of Alexander Mackenzie in the 1870s. We had very little in
the way of checks on the House, and hence it was the Senate's job
to do that.
We move ahead 132 years and what do we have? We have the
Supreme Court of Canada which came into existence in 1949. Until
that point, we still sent our appeals to the Privy Council in
Great Britain.
We have a number of agreements which are checks on the House of
Commons, such as agreements on federal-provincial relations in
trade, NAFTA and the WTO. They are all checks on the House of
Commons. For those who doubt that, I would invite them to look
at Bill C-29 that was passed by the House and the Senate. It was
thrown out because it was deemed to not be within the powers of
the Parliament of Canada, in particular the House of Commons,
because it offended federal-provincial agreements.
There are many checks today on the House of Commons, but I would
suggest that the Senate is not one of them. As we know, the
Senate today is less educated than the House of Commons. The
Senate only works about 66 half days a year. Just this past week
a local newspaper stated that the attendance record for senators
at committee meetings versus members of the House of Commons were
quite dismal. We have a rather dispirited group of people where
history has passed them by. Political legitimacy has passed them
by. However, they are still in a place where they have legal
legitimacy. They are there and they have “a job” to do.
If we look at the history of the Senate of Canada, we will know
that there has been but one change in that place in 132 years.
That change was made by former Prime Minister Pearson in 1968
when it was deemed that senators who had originally been
appointed for life would only be appointed to age 75.
If we compare that to what occurred in Great Britain in 1919,
the British government moved to cut in half, some would say, the
powers of the House of Lords. The House of Lords today is under
full attack by the government of that country. There is massive
change and it looks like they are going to disappear with time.
We have had this institutional stagnation in Canada, in
particular in the other place, to the point where it is still
legally correct and legally legitimate, but politically no one
believes it.
We have heard reference to polls today. My colleague from
Regina—Qu'Appelle referred to an Angus Reid poll earlier that
says that about 90 to 95% of Canadians recognize that the other
place is politically and totally illegitimate. Five per cent of
people either do not know or are willing to accept it. I
understand that.
If we go to the one big difference between the House of Commons
and the other place, we will know that although the other place
has powers tantamount to this place, when it comes to the
appropriation of dollars we have the exclusive domain. We know
that last year the Senate year had a budget increase of a little
more than 10%. We also know that the chair of the internal
economy board in the other place has tabled a budget which calls
for an increase this year of 6.1%.
If members look at the actual document they will see that it
shows $30 million.
1940
To follow up on a speech made by the government House leader
earlier, he pointed out that we cannot do anything about some of
this because we already voted for it. That is correct. That was
the salary increase for senators, which was passed earlier this
year, but that does not appear in the estimates and has nothing
to do with the estimates. It is statutory requirements. The $30
million we are talking about is the $9,000 housing allowance that
was voted on by senators for themselves for this year. That is
$9,000 to live in Ottawa, when they are only here for 65 or 66
days in total, and for the operation of the Senate.
We heard from the government House leader that the Senate had to
raise the salaries for its staff, and we understand that.
If one looks at the estimates and at the speech, the only speech
made in the Senate with respect to its budget—there was but one
speech made in that place—we would see that it is not $3 million
going toward salary increases but about half of that. It is about
$1.5 million in salary increases. The other $1.5 million is
going into that black hole called services in the Senate.
The Senate estimates have eight headings, such as information
and rentals. What does this all mean? I have no idea what it
means. However, the fact is the House of Commons is the place
that has to approve appropriations. Tonight we are being asked
to blindly approve a 6.1% increase for the other place.
It is easy to say that senators are doing their job. I have no
disagreement with that. They have a job to do and it is in our
constitutional framework. It was set in stone in 1867. However,
I think we can have a legitimate debate in the country on
whether we are going to abolish the Senate, have a triple E
Senate, or have a single E Senate. I totally agree with that and
I think my position is well known.
However, are we to blindly approve a 6.1% increase because the
other place has said that it needs the money? We must not put this
into the context that because they have requested it we, in the
House of Commons, must blindly give it to them. Let us put it in
the context of what is reasonable, reasonable under current
economic circumstances, reasonable in making a comparison to other
sectors of the economy and reasonable in terms of what the Canadian
public, who will ultimately pay for this, would say is the case.
If we clearly look, we will see that nobody in the country is
getting 6.1%. There is nobody in the country getting 6.1% save
and except the Senate of Canada.
We should not talk about this being an all or nothing
proposition. It is clearly not that. What the government House
leader failed to point out is that there are three motions for
amendment on the Order Paper. One of the motions calls for zero
dollars for the Senate. The second one calls for zero dollars to
the Senate. I understand both of these motions, but the third
motion states that we should limit the Senate's increase to 2%,
which would represent an increase of about $1.5 million.
What are we looking at in the Senate? According to the chair of
the Senate's internal economy board, the Senate needs about $1.5
million to meet its budgetary increases in terms of employees. I
think we can all understand and agree with that. People in the
public service have certainly not had raises for a number of
years. I do not think it is unreasonable to give them a 2%
increase? I also do not think it is an issue that the Canadian
public would feel offended by.
1945
By and large I do not think anyone in the Canadian public will
react to a 2% raise for employees whether they work on Parliament
Hill or for someone else in the country, especially having regard
to the history of limited increases for some time now.
However there is a big but that I want to emphasize and
underline. Is 6% reasonable having regard to the fact that in
the past year they had 10%? Is 6% reasonable, knowing full well
that the chair of the internal economy board of the Senate has
said that they are asking for 6.1% today but do not think it will
be enough and will have to get more before the fiscal year is
out?
Although I have said that the Senate is legally legitimate I
think it is politically illegitimate. That is my opinion. If we
cannot debate parliamentary reform in this place, I do not know
where we can do it. If this is a body which is legally
legitimate, which it is, should it not act in a reasonable
fashion?
All Canadians ask is that their political institutions be
reasonable. Should that place, which has a very limited function
today, not send a signal? Should it not be a symbol? Should it
not send a message to all Canadians that it understands money is
hard to come by, that it has a constitutional obligation or duty
to fulfil, and that it will do it in a fashion which does not
increase the demands upon the public purse in an unacceptable
fashion?
In many cases we get back to what I term as the test of
reasonableness which comes from making comparisons with other
sectors of the economy. I have noted that no one is getting this
kind of increase whatsoever.
The Senate says it is doing its job. I think to a certain
extent it has a function to perform. I learned earlier today
that it has found strange ways of spending the $30,051,000 that
it requested and has already started to spend.
Earlier today I was pleased to participate in a demonstration in
front of this building with colleagues from other parties in the
House. I learned from certain media representatives that the
Senate was concerned about the demonstration. In fact it was so
concerned that it hired two public relations gurus to spin its
story. Today the Senate of Canada used public money to spin its
side of the story.
One would think that a legislative body which is under attack
from all directions would try to be prudent, would try to be
circumspect, and would change its behaviour in some way. I do
not know. To find out today that questions being posed by
reporters to those who participated came from media gurus or
public relations and media relations agents which were hired by
the Senate is an interesting, bizarre and pathetic set of
circumstances. If that is the way that place uses its money, let
us pull it back, recognizing that it needs some money to fulfil
its constitutional obligation but not 6.1%.
We have the right in this place to pass judgment on
appropriation. As noted earlier, the chair of the internal
economy board of the other place refused point blank to appear
before a House of Commons standing committee to answer some
simple questions. His comment as reported in the press was “I
account to the public” That is very easy to say but the public
knows that is not the case in any way.
1950
The same member of the other place has been quoted as saying
that they do legitimate work and that they clarify and improve
legislation from the House of Commons. Is it not interesting
that when the Senate makes an amendment to a bill it is deemed to
be a clarification issue or an improvement issue? Is it not
interesting that we would allow a group of people who apparently
are now a house of distinguished Canadians the right to pass
judgment on what the elected officials have decided?
Is it not interesting that after 132 years we have all corners
of the country crying out for change to this legally legitimate
body? We can argue that change at another time. Yet it uses
that institutional shield to protect itself from change.
I am not talking about profound change in the sense of
downsizing. We cannot change its constitutional mandate. I am
talking about change in terms of consumption of money, change in
terms of being open to the public, change in terms of working
with the House of Commons when it comes to its budget, and change
in terms of answering the questions that the elected people will
be asked to pass judgment on tonight. We are being told by the
Senate that we have no choice. The appointed body will say that
we will pass it or else. We will pass it or it will have a work
stoppage.
It is a sad commentary that 132 years after Confederation we are
still living in a society where the elected representatives of
the people are being held hostage by a group of 104 people who
have no political legitimacy. Therefore I ask members tonight,
especially those in the Conservative Party, to seriously consider
what they are doing when they vote for Senate appropriation.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask my Liberal colleague a question about the
Senate. As he knows, the New Democratic Party supports the
abolition of the Senate because it is unelected. As a matter of
fact the people who occupy the Senate are friends of former prime
ministers and the current Prime Minister.
Senators are appointed to age 75, and 104 of them and their
staff spend about $55 million a year. They have no
accountability to anyone. They do not have to go to
constituencies to report on what they have been doing on their
behalf. They do not do much of behalf of people unless it is a
very wealthy family or a very large corporation.
Has my Liberal colleague ever heard of someone by the name of
Jim Balfour? Perhaps he could nod his head yes or no.
He has never heard of Mr. Balfour. We have a senator by the
name of James Balfour who was appointed 20 years ago by Joe
Clark. He was a friend of the then prime minister. He is a
Conservative who comes from my home town in Regina.
I have been involved in the public community of Regina for 26
years and I have never met this person. Nor have any of the
6,000 people to whom I have talked. They have never heard of
this guy who is a senator representing Saskatchewan, let alone
Regina. Over the years Mr. Balfour has an attendance record of
maybe 18% or 23% depending on the year we are looking at.
Does the Liberal member opposite, who also supports the
abolition of the Senate, believe that there should be more
accountability for the people who are there now? Perhaps they
should go back to their cities and provinces on occasion to meet
one or two people, at least once or twice a year, so that people
know they are alive and maybe doing something progressive for the
country.
Would the Liberal member comment on Mr. Balfour, the phantom
senator from Regina?
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
the NDP for his question. I must say that I have never heard of
this individual. It is not my habit to comment on individuals
from the other place.
1955
I want to respond in general to his question. Let us look to
other places, other parliaments that have had senates, houses of
lords or like bodies. We are the only country in a parliamentary
democracy which has an appointed body, save and except Malaysia,
a great democracy, which has a strictly appointed upper chamber.
If we look at other parliamentary democracies we find that they
are tied to performance. If one gets to the upper chamber by
some appointment route or by the election route, it is tied to
one's presence.
The House of Lords is identical to our Senate in terms of
accountability. It has imposed that its members have to show up
to get paid. Here they get paid and if they do not show up a
little bit is taken off. In Britain, one who by accident of
birth is in the House of Lords has to show up to get paid. It is
tied to performance.
I recognize there are people in the other place who believe they
represent their regions. I come from southwestern Ontario. For
the last two years we have had a senator from southwestern
Ontario. Southwestern Ontario is a very densely populated area.
We have a senator who lives maybe 100 miles from me. He is a
fine man. He is a nice gentleman. I like him and all that. It
is nothing to do with him, but he no more represents the region
than Senator Balfour does the region of southwestern Ontario.
Senators are today representative of what I believe to be
special interest groups. It is nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had
the honour today to participate in a rally on Parliament Hill
with several of my colleagues, including the hon. member across
the way.
I would like to pose a question to my hon. colleague. I
remember having taken part in committee meetings with regard to
the whole idea of accountability. I remember very well refusals
by representatives from the Senate to speak to the accountability
of that body.
Let us analyse it. Is the Senate accountable to the taxpayer? I
do not happen to think so because I do not think taxpayers would
approve a 16% budget increase over two years when the House of
Commons gets 2% and generally government operations get 3%. I
cannot think of anyone who would make such demands, especially
under the circumstances when the Senate works 66 half days a
year.
I then look at it in terms of whether or not the Senate is
accountable to the House of Commons. According to the Senate it
is not accountable to the House of Commons. That is one of the
reasons it is willing to raise its budgets, not be accountable to
anybody else, and say that it will go ahead and hold hostage the
House of Commons and push for work stoppages in this place if we
try to call it into question.
The Senate always likes to say that it is not accountable to the
Prime Minister either. I could go through all the appointments
various prime ministers including this current one have made, but
once they are appointed they say they are no longer accountable
to the Prime Minister.
I do not believe that the Senate is accountable to taxpayers. I
do not believe the Senate is accountable to the House of Commons.
I do not believe the Senate is accountable to the Prime Minister.
To whom is it accountable?
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Calgary West for that most interesting question.
I agree the Senate is not accountable to taxpayers. There is
absolutely no question about that whatsoever. Is it accountable
to the House of Commons?
The senators have sent a message through the chair of the
internal economy board of the other place that that individual
would not appear before a standing committee of the House of
Commons to explain the Senate budget, to in some way answer some
very rudimentary questions about the budget tabled in the other
place.
2000
Are they accountable to the Prime Minister? I think the answer
is no but we could argue about that. If we go back in time and
look at the list of appointments, there are people who were
appointed in the seventies. I do not know if there are any left
from the sixties but certainly there are some from the seventies,
the eighties and into the early nineties. Of course they were
accountable to other prime ministers but they have come and gone.
The open ended question is are we going to put up with a body
that is unaccountable and that continues to demand relatively
large sums of money for rather obtuse purposes? I think my
position on it is well known.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I pose another question to
my hon. colleague. Can he think of another job, any job, where
one would be able to work 66 half days a year and get a salary in
excess of $64,000 plus $12,000 in an expense account and then
over $10,000 in a non-receiptable expense account, which
basically amounts to a payout because no receipts have to be
given for it? I would like my hon. colleague to let us know if
he can think of any other job where somebody could enjoy for 66
half days a year those types of benefits, and more than that that
someone could serve for one day—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the
hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is only going to have 30 seconds
to think of that.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon.
member is saying in his question. The total benefit package for
a senator in terms of cost to the public is about $100,000 plus
travel which includes 64 return trips and a VIA Rail pass. It is
quite a large number of dollars. The answer is that the only
other person in this country who probably has an equivalent
lifestyle is someone who has won a very large lottery. That is
the only person I can think of.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will say a word or two about the motion before the
House. We are being asked to vote tonight on a motion by the
government to reinstate the spending estimates for the Senate of
Canada for $30,051,000. That is roughly half of what the Senate
spends in a year. The other roughly $30 million is in other
votes that will be taken later on tonight. The Senate costs
about $60 million a year.
Mr. John Solomon: Over 10 years.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: A year, and it goes up almost every year.
Last year it went up by some 10%. The year before it went up by
some 6%. That makes 16% over two years.
Mr. John Solomon: That is a lot.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: That seems like a lot of money for
the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.
It might be better if there were some system of accountability
but what kind of accountability is there? Can the members for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Calgary West or Sarnia—Lambton
know how we are accountable for this money?
Tonight maybe a lot of people are channel flipping between
hockey games and baseball games and are watching this debate.
Sixty million dollars is being spent. The Liberal member across
the way laughs, but tonight there is going to be a vote and he
has to be accountable to his constituents on how he votes. Is he
going to vote for spending $60 million a year for that unelected
undemocratic house?
2005
There was a request by a lot of MPs to have Senator Rompkey, who
is the chair of the internal board of economy for the Senate, to
appear before the relevant committee of the House of Commons. He
would not appear. He refused to appear to justify the estimates
and the expenditures of the Senate of Canada.
Every department has to appear before the relevant committee of
the House. The Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, the CRTC, the Canadian Wheat Board,
they all have to be there, except the Senate of Canada. Senator
Rompkey said no that he was not accountable to the House of
Commons, yet the House of Commons has to sign this blank cheque
for the Senate of Canada.
Even the member for Brandon—Souris, that famous Tory who
supported David Orchard for the leadership, must be hanging his
head in shame on this one. I can hear him rattling his head from
this far away. Is he going to get up and say he is going to sign
this blank cheque for the Senate of Canada? His constituents are
watching as they flip channels tonight. They are watching.
Senator Rompkey refused to appear before any committee of the
House of Commons. No senator has justified the expenditures. No
senator has been willing to sit there and be cross-examined by
members of parliament asking why they want to spend so much money
on the salary for Senator Balfour, or on a restaurant, or on a
tunnel, or on a fancy committee room, or for travelling the world
to study boreal forests and so on. They are not doing that.
What Canadians should do is take out their pencils and paper
because the Senate unlike the House of Commons has a toll free
number. We do not have a toll free number but it has one. They
should call a senator. The member for Sarnia—Lambton did not
know who Senator James Balfour was. Phone him tonight. Give him
a call. They can call a senator at 1-800-267-7362. Does the
member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre remember that number? Can
the member from Calgary remember that number?
That is what the Canadian people should be doing tonight and
tomorrow. Pick up a phone and call their favourite senator. Ask
why senators had a 10% increase last year, a 6% increase this
year, a 16% increase over two years more than any government
department received, more than the Department of Health for
medicare, more than the educational system in this country, more
than the salary increase the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre was lobbying for. People should do that.
I am anxious to see how the House will vote tonight on this
particular motion, including our Conservative Party friend from
Brandon.
We had a little demonstration outside the Senate today. A
member from the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the New
Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois organized a little rally.
No one from the Conservatives was there. They did not show up.
Their caucus is dominated by senators. They were not there. They
have a lot of senators in that caucus. They could have been
there protesting this huge cash grab by the Senate of Canada.
The time has come for members of parliament to reflect what
their constituents are saying when it comes to the Senate. About
5% of the people support the existing Senate. The rest either
want to abolish it or reform it, change it in some way. Members
of parliament should be listening to what their constituents are
saying and reflecting what their constituents are saying.
I challenge every member of parliament, including the member for
Brandon—Souris, to go out and knock on doors in their ridings.
Ask the first 10 people on the street whether or not they support
the existing Senate. Unless they run into a senator from
Manitoba, the answer will be a resounding no. We should start
reflecting that in the House of Commons and actually do in this
place what the people of this country want us to do.
I also believe along with many others in the House that the
Senate should be abolished. I also know there are members of the
federal cabinet who would be on the record for talking about
abolishing the Senate. The external affairs, constitutional
affairs and industry ministers among others have spoken out at
various times in the past about the abolition of the Senate.
2010
The reason I am saying that is I have given up on the idea that
we are going to reform the Senate. It has been tried ad nauseam
year in and year out. We have had 132 years of the existing
Senate. As the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, 132 years ago it
was set up as part of our constitutional framework because we
copied the model in Great Britain.
In 1867 the people elected the house of commoners. The people
here were commoners. The aristocracy in those days thought there
should be someone looking down on the commoners and keeping them
in line. That was the House of Lords or the Senate in this
country.
We have long evolved through that system where the commoners
have to be looked upon and controlled by the aristocracy or the
elite. We have come to the position now where there is no place
for an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable house. I believe
we are never going to reform the Senate. There are many people in
the Reform Party, some Liberals and some Tories who think we can
still reform that place.
We can still have the equality of the provinces, with Prince
Edward Island with as many senators as Ontario or as many
senators as Quebec. Quebec has seven million people and Ontario
has ten million. Prince Edward Island has 130,000 people. But
we are never going to get an agreement that will call for the
equality of all those provinces in terms of the configuration of
a new Senate. I believe it is never going to happen.
We should go out across the country and campaign among the
people of Canada. Between now and the next federal election we
should campaign on the issue of abolishing the other place. Make
it an issue in the next campaign. Force the people in all
political parties to take a position on what they want to do with
the Senate.
If we do that and we get rid of the other place we then have to
reform the House of Commons and bring into this place many of the
things the Senate was supposed to do. It was supposed to be a
place for checks and balances. It was supposed to be a place to
review legislation. That is obviously not happening in the other
place.
We can do it here by strengthening parliamentary committees, by
having fewer confidence votes, by having more free votes. We can
do it by giving the committees of the House of Commons the power
to initiate legislation, initiate studies and reviews. There can
be better budgets for committees so they can set their own
timetables, and they can actually timetable when legislation must
come to the House of Commons.
It is also time to take away power from the executive, namely
the Prime Minister. This is no criticism of any particular Prime
Minister; it is a criticism of our system. The Prime Minister's
office in Canada has immense power to appoint cabinet ministers,
parliamentary secretaries, parliamentary committees, even though
there is a so-called election in the committees. A lot of that
power should be taken away.
We should also take away a lot of the power that the Prime
Minister has in making major appointments to crown agencies. I
think of the CRTC, the Canadian Wheat Board and many other
agencies, boards and commissions. I also think of the Supreme
Court of Canada and federal judges. I do not think the federal
government should have the unilateral power to appoint federal
judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In most of these cases the federal government should have the
right to nominate someone it wants to nominate but it should go
to the relevant committee of the House to have hearings and
ratify or reject the nomination of the Government of Canada.
I came to that conclusion in about 1978 or 1979 when I saw the
then Prime Minister, who happened to be Pierre Trudeau but it
could have been anyone else including the member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, appoint Bryce Mackasey as the head
of Air Canada. Bryce Mackasey knew as much about Air Canada and
aviation as I know about the Atlantic fishery, which is very
little.
I did not meet a single Liberal backbencher in those days who
supported the nomination of Bryce Mackasey, who by the way was
and is a friend of mine and a very honourable gentleman. He is a
very wonderful person. I am not criticizing him. But that was
not the position he should have been appointed to.
I did not meet a single Liberal backbencher in those days who
supported the nomination of Bryce Mackasey as the president of
Air Canada. Of course it was a crown corporation in those days.
But because of our parliamentary system, they were handcuffed.
Their hands were tied. They could do nothing about it because it
was the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint the
president of Air Canada, just like the Prime Minister now
appoints the president of the CBC who last time around happened
to be another good friend, Perrin Beatty, who was a minister in
the cabinet of Brian Mulroney.
In any event if we had had serious parliamentary reform in those
days and the Prime Minister could have only made the nomination
but the relevant committee, transport at that time, would have
the right to have hearings and ratify or reject, Mr. Mackasey
would never have been nominated by the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister would have known that Mr. Mackasey would never have
survived those review and ratification hearings. There would
have been a nomination by the Prime Minister of someone who would
have been more able and capable to be president of Air Canada.
That is why we need some serious parliamentary reform. When we
vote in the House of Commons to reject the estimates of the
Senate, we do so knowing that we just cannot get rid of the other
place and leave a vacuum and a vacancy but it is important to
also reform the House of Commons. Bring the process of review and
the process of checks and balances into the House of Commons
itself.
2015
I also believe that other powers should be taken away from the
prime minister. There are many countries in the world, for
example, where the prime minister or the president cannot set the
election date unilaterally. I think we should look at that as
well. Many countries do not give the right to their prime
minister to set the election date. If we took that right away
and had elections every three, four or five years, that would
take a lot of power away from the prime minister.
I also think that we should have in statute set times for throne
speeches and budgets so that we could have a timetable for those
items as well, not in accordance with the wishes or the agenda of
the prime minister, but in accordance with what is best for the
country as a whole. We pretty well have the practice of setting
the budget date in the month of February, but it is not in
statute and we do not have set throne speech dates. If we did
there would be a better planning process for the provinces, the
municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals and so on.
I believe that these are some of the things we should be looking
at as parliamentarians.
I want to make one final comment this evening, which is a bit
more radical.
Mr. John Williams: Radical, from the NDP?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: A bit more radical. I know the hon.
member for Calgary West will support this, but I am not sure
about the more frugal member for St. Albert.
I believe we should also be looking at incorporating the idea of
at least some proportional representation into our electoral
system so that we give a voice to all Canadians in the country,
regardless of whom they want to vote for and where they come
from. I have presented a private member's bill to this effect.
This would give some regional representation to the central
institution of parliament.
As a matter of fact, when Tony Blair reforms the British
parliament the election after next, we will be the only
parliamentary system in the world that does not have at least
some PR mixed into our system. I am not talking about advocating
a totally pure PR system like there is in Israel. I think we
should have a mixed number proportional, where we have some
members, maybe half or two-thirds, representing constituents.
That would be topped up by members elected by PR in a very
democratic way, where the party leadership does not choose the
people who go on that particular list.
I say that because this House of Commons is supposed to be a
reflection of the Canadian people. However, if we look at the
composition of the House today, we have a majority government
with the constitutional right to govern for five years. What
vote did it get last time? It got 38%, with a turnout of about
67%. The turnout has been plummeting in the last 30 years. In
1968, 80% of the people voted. Last time it was 67%, largely
because people asked “Why bother? Why waste my vote?
Politicians do not listen. How I vote does not seem to make any
difference”. In many cases that is absolutely true.
Since 1921 we have only had two elections where a majority of
the people voted for the government in power. They were in 1945
with Mackenzie King and in 1958 with John Diefenbaker. Brian
Mulroney came close in 1984 with 49.7% or 49.8%. During that
time we have had many majority governments and every one of them,
except for those two, was elected by a minority. Really what we
have is the tyranny of the minority in the House of Commons
today.
We have other distortions in the House of Commons. The Reform
Party and the Conservative Party got about 19% of the votes each.
The Conservative Party got 20 seats and the Reform Party got 60
seats.
[Translation]
There are now 21 NDP members and 44 from the Bloc
Quebecois. In the last election, the Bloc Quebecois obtained
11% of the vote and the NDP also obtained 11%.
[English]
We had the same vote as the Bloc Quebecois.
The votes are not reflected in the House of Commons in
accordance with the way that the people of this country vote.
Therefore, most people consider that their vote is wasted. Most
Canadians voted for losing candidates. If we had a system of PR
incorporated into the House there would not be a single lost vote
in the country.
A person could, for example, vote Liberal in parts of the
prairies where that party cannot win and that vote would still
count. A person could vote NDP in southern Alberta and that vote
would count. A person could vote Reform in Newfoundland and that
vote would count. A person could even vote Conservative in
Saskatchewan and that vote would count. I suppose that a person
could vote for the Bloc Quebecois in British Columbia and that
vote would still count, if there was a system in this country
that had a measure of proportional representation built into it
like every other parliamentary system in the world. Every other
parliamentary system in the world has it except Canada.
I think these are some of the changes we need, some of the
reforms we need. What we need in this country is big democracy.
Allow the people in. Let the people's voice be heard. Let the
people say what they want in this country.
That is the way we should go.
2020
Instead, tonight we are going to see the majority of this House
vote another $30 million for the unelected Senate, with no
accountability, no election, no democracy. Does anybody agree
with that? Why do they vote that way?
I want the member for Brandon—Souris to tell me why members of
his party for 132 years have defended the status quo. I know
they are Conservatives, but 132 years of the status quo? How in
God's name can those members vote that way?
I know the member campaigned on behalf of David Orchard. It
seems to me that he would be a bit of a rebel and would not be
afraid to speak out and take a line that differs from Senators
Balfour, Berntson, Cogger and everybody else in the Senate. I
hope the member does that this evening in the House of Commons.
We need serious parliamentary and electoral change. We have to
democratize our electoral system and democratize our
parliamentary system. I hope that government backbenchers have
the courage like the member for Sarnia—Lambton to advocate
serious democratic change for the people of this country. If we
do that we could make a real contribution to the new millennium
and we could have a real democracy for the new millennium.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a brief comment to make before asking my honourable colleague a
question.
I recently mailed out in my riding 48,000 copies of a 16-page
pamphlet containing a great deal of information on senators,
with a breakdown of their income and benefits, and what they do
in the Senate. In addition to being extremely well paid and
having a multitude of benefits, they serve particular interests.
Some even sit on the board of multiple corporations, as well as
defending the interests of certain parties.
The reaction in my riding was extremely virulent.
Hundreds of people called up to ask “How can Canada allow an
institution that is not representative, not elected and not
accountable?”
In the pamphlet, I gave two phone numbers, one for the Senate,
which I think is still connected, and the other for the PMO.
They have been swamped with calls and the PMO line had to be
disconnected. The Senate line may well follow suit before long
if people keep on calling.
One of the points raised by the leader of the government in the
House was that there were a great many constitutional problems
relating to the Senate regulations. In this document, since we
have the power to set the Senate's budget, I propose that its
budget be limited to $1 per senator per year.
This will encourage the senators to retire.
I would therefore ask my colleague if he finds that budget
formula more acceptable than allocating $30 million to the
Senate.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for
Québec East. A unique way to abolish the Senate of Canada would
be to reduce its budget from $60 million a year to $104, or $1
per senator. With a budget of $1 per senator, the Senate would
be abolished de facto.
This would perhaps be a way of coming up with a solution that
did not involve the Constitution of Canada or its amending
formula.
2025
I agree with him, and I think that our party does as well, if
there is a way to do this without going through the lengthy
process of amending our Constitution.
The problem with the Constitution is that we need unanimous
consent to abolish the Senate and even to reform it. We need
unanimous consent for a great many things. In other cases the
section 42 formula applies. We then need the consent of
two-thirds of the provinces representing 50% of the Canadian
population, in addition to the support of parliament. I
therefore agree with the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very closely to what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said. He
made some excellent points. Without question, the Canadian
public does not support a non-elected Senate. If a survey was
sent out to 100 Canadians, I dare say that 70 of them would say
they do not support a non-elected Senate.
Mr. John Solomon: It would be 99.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I would not put it that high,
certainly not in the riding I represent, because I sent a survey
out to every household in the riding, which came back with 70% in
favour of an elected Senate, not in favour of abolishing the
Senate.
Unlike both hon. members who spoke, I do not think we do such a
great job in the House. I do not think we are the last line of
defence for the Canadian public. I am not so full of myself that
I could believe that we could put something forth in the House of
Commons and have the final say for all Canadians.
I would not for a moment say that we should not have another
house to keep check of the House of Commons, regardless of who
sits on that side or on this side of the House. I also do not
think that we are doing justice to Canadians by having four
official opposition parties in the House of Commons. I would
like the hon. member's comments on that.
I fully agree that we should do something about the Senate, but
stopping their budget? Let us be real. Let us have an elected
Senate. Let us do something about it. I do not care if it is a
triple E Senate or a double E Senate, I want the word
“election” in the process.
With respect to holding back its budget, the Senate does do
some good work. It has some members who should not be members of
the Senate. We have some members of parliament who should not be
members of parliament.
Let us do something progressive and positive. I will offer my
support to reform the Senate, but not to abolish it. It is as
simple as that. I would like to have the hon. member's comments
on that.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what more
I could add. First, let us say that we have a consensus that the
existing Senate is not supported by many people in this country.
The survey which the hon. member took indicated that there was
about 30% support in his riding. The Angus Reid poll indicated
that around 5% of the people of this country support the existing
Senate. Pollara did a poll which indicated that it was a bit
higher than that. By the way, just in terms of the record, the
Angus Reid poll indicated that 41% of the people wanted to
abolish the Senate and 43% wanted to reform the Senate. Pollara
did a poll which indicated that 36% of the people wanted to
abolish the Senate and 35% wanted to reform the Senate.
I submit to the hon. member that his constituents probably think
in a similar way to people right across the country. If he had a
question worded as to whether his constituents wanted to reform
the Senate, abolish the Senate or maintain the status quo, I am
sure in his riding the opinion would be overwhelmingly to not
have the status quo, but would be divided on whether we should
abolish or reform it.
We should unite in terms of getting rid of the status quo. Let
us listen to that 90% or 95% of the Canadian people. Liberal
members feel the same way, if we could get rid of these crazy
handcuffs of confidence votes on estimates.
I am sure that if Conservative members were to reflect the
interests of their constituents and forget about their friends in
the Senate they too would vote in favour of reducing Senate
estimates. If we could unite on that point, that the status quo
is not good enough and it has to go, then we could have a real
debate after the next federal election to come up with a formula
either to elect it or abolish it. I would like to see that be
the real debate. At that time I will obviously be continuing my
support for abolition. One reason for that, and I want to throw
this at my friends in the Reform Party, especially my friend from
St. Albert who is so concerned about money, is that if we have an
elected house it is not going to cost $60 million. We could
probably double or triple that because it will have legitimacy.
We will then have an awful lot of money being spent in terms of
its elections, its staff, its travel and its facilities.
2030
If it is elected, it is legitimate. If it is elected, it is
just as legitimate as we are and we invite gridlock and deadlock
between the two legitimately elected houses. It creates a bigger
bureaucracy, more red tape and a greater slowness in terms of
governing. It seems to me that is something the Reform Party has
always stood against.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
APPROPRIATION BILL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order with respect to the appropriation bill which
we are about to consider at all stages tonight. In my opinion
the bill is out of order since it is attempting to approve
expenditure for the Department of Canadian Heritage Parks Canada
Agency for the fiscal year 2000-01.
Subclause 6(2) at page 3 of the bill states:
Amounts appropriated by Schedule 2 may be spent at any time on or
before March 31, 2001, so long as every expenditure is charged
first against the relevant amount appropriated that is earliest
in time until that amount is exhausted, next against the relevant
amount appropriated that is next in time until that amount is
exhausted and so on.
Schedule 2 of the bill at page 58 attempts to appropriate
$245,857,000 for the fiscal years April 1, 1999 to March 31,
2001.
Mr. Speaker, if you review the standing orders and our
practices, the estimates process is designed to deal with the
next fiscal year and not the fiscal year after that.
I will start with citation 933 of Beauchesne's sixth edition
which states:
The purpose of the Estimates is to present to Parliament the
budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the
Government for the next fiscal year.
Citation 934 states:
In accordance with Standing Order 81(4), in every session the
main Estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every
department of government shall be referred to the standing
committees—
If citation 934 is read in full, it goes on to talk more about
the current fiscal year. Citation 944 states:
The Estimates are limited to setting out only the sums which it
is calculated will be required in the current year, and do not
show the value of assets held or the liabilities outstanding from
the previous financial year or to be spread over future years.
While these citations refer to the estimates, citation 968 ties
the appropriation bill into this argument. It states:
The concurrence by the House in the Estimates is an Order of the
House to bring in a bill, known as the appropriation bill based
thereon.
If we review the standing order starting with Standing Order
81(1) and follow through to Standing Order 81(22), they all deal
with the principle that the estimates are to cover the incoming
fiscal year and not the year after that.
We have example after example before us from both Beauchesne's
and the standing orders of the House which clearly demonstrate
that the estimates and appropriation acts are intended to deal
with one fiscal year at a time.
I fear that the legislation such as this before us is eroding
the power of parliamentarians and the power of the House to make
informed decisions on granting supply to the crown.
If this bill is allowed to remain on the order paper, it will
set a dangerous precedent where the estimates will no longer be
required to be published and passed on a yearly basis.
Therefore, I believe that Appropriation Act No. 2, 1999-2000,
Bill C-86 as it will become known, should be ruled out of order
and removed from the order paper forthwith.
2035
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I invite any other
members who would like to speak to this specific and interesting
point of order to do so.
As no one else wishes to rise on the point of order raised by
the hon. member for St. Albert, we will take it under advisement
and come back to the House.
* * *
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PARLIAMENT
The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
guess I must start my dissertation with what vitriolic balderdash
we hear from members of the New Democratic Party, of the Reform
Party and of the Bloc Quebecois.
I wonder if it has any bearing on the fact that all three of
those parties have no representation or membership in the Senate.
Quite frankly they never will have any representative in the
Senate because they would have to form government.
The Bloc will never form government. The NDP is lucky to even
be here and, if the New Brunswick and Ontario elections are any
indication, probably will not be here in the future. As for the
Reform Party, we do not know where it is. We do not know who the
Reformers will be running under, what they will be running under
or if they will even be in the House. It would be best for
Canadians if they did not come back to the House.
Let me talk about a couple of issues. We are dealing with
government appropriations for many departments. We could be
standing here today debating the appropriations for the
Department of Health, a huge budget and an issue that resonates
across the country with every individual Canadian. Health deals
with each and every one of us.
We could be dealing with appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture, which has a budget of $1.2 billion, not $50 million.
Its budget should be increased because there are some very
serious issues within the Department of Agriculture such as the
development of a long term policy that deals with natural
disasters. The member from the NDP should have talked to that
because his constituents are being directly affected by what is
going on as we speak. Members of the Reform Party should be
talking about it because their areas are directly impacted by
what is going on right now in agriculture.
We are having a Senate bashing debate. We have a $50 million
appropriation and we are having a full debate in the House of
Commons when there are issues out there that certainly should be
talked about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, if members would listen
they would learn something. We are a party unlike some other
parties in the House that do not know whether they are fish or
fowl at this point in time. We will not get into those debates
now.
When I first came to the House, probably as uninformed as Reform
Party members or perhaps not quite as uniformed because I do have
a tendency to learn and listen, I too had some questions as to
the viability and the responsibility of members of the Senate. I
have an advantage because my party has members sitting in the
Senate. I have the advantage of listening, learning and keeping
an open mind, which obviously sometimes is not shared by other
members of the House.
When I first came to the House I looked across the House and saw
a government with a majority and a piece of legislation called
Bill C-4.
That piece of legislation was to revamp the Canadian Wheat Board.
It was a very important piece of legislation to my constituents
and to others.
2040
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was wondering what relevance reference to Bill C-4 has
to a vote on money for the Senate. I wonder if you could rule on
that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre suggesting the Chair should rule
on relevancy in the debate tonight?
Mr. John Solomon: No, not at all sir.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, if that were one of the
criteria, the hon. member would never have been able to speak in
the House since he was elected.
Let me tell him how Bill C-4 becomes relevant to the debate on
whether the Senate has a place to play in parliamentary democracy
in the country. Bill C-4 had some serious flaws when it came to
the House, but a government with a majority has a tendency not to
listen to members of the opposition who quite frankly have some
very good ideas and thoughts about how legislation could be made
better.
Unfortunately that piece of legislation was rammed through
committee and through the House. The only opportunity I had to
make that legislation better was to elicit the support of the
Senate.
The Senate did a wonderful job. The senators went out and
listened to the Canadian public. They were accountable to the
Canadian public. They held Senate hearings at which they
listened to the stakeholders. They made changes that made the
legislation better. It is a check and balance. It is an
opportunity for parliamentarians to solicit and elicit the other
house to make legislation better.
With a stroke of a pen the Reform Party would abolish the
Senate. Where would we be? We would have a majority government
able to do anything it wanted to the citizens of the country
because it has a majority. The Reform Party has no plans. It
has no understanding of parliamentary democracy. There is a
requirement to have that check and balance.
Should there be reconstruction of the existing Senate? Of
course there should but it should be done logically and with a
well thought out plan. Let us not do it with vitriolic
balderdash. Let us go forward and make sure that not only
Canadians agree with the new plan but that the House and the
Senate agree with the new structure and plan.
Let me give the House some ideas that were put forward in the
Charlottetown accord. The Charlottetown accord came forward with
restructuring of the Senate in mind. Who did not support it? The
Reform Party did not support it. It did not want to restructure
the Senate and make a change to the status quo. It did not want
to think logically about how Canadians could be better governed.
The governance of the country was not important to that party.
What was important was simply the matter of partisan politics,
the hot button issues, instead of health care, agriculture and
all other departments that are important to the country which we
should be talking about.
Let me tell the House about the Senate. The Senate has helped
me in the job that I do. I have that opportunity. When I came
here I did not think that what was there was right. In fact
there has to be some restructuring, but members opposite should
take the time to phone the 1-800 number to talk to the senators.
They are very accessible and very open.
2045
Phone the 800 number that has been advertised by the NDP right
now. Talk to the senators. Ask them their opinion. There are
some very bright, experienced and very dedicated people in that
House.
I will not mention names like the hon. member from Saskatchewan
did because I do not think it is fair that we use those names in
this House, but I can take members to the people who spend as
much if not more time in their house than do probably the
majority of members of parliament. There are good and bad in
every house. I believe that the majority of the senators who sit
on our side in the Senate are very good.
Let us talk about what would happen if there was not that check
and balance. Simple solutions for very complex issues is where
the Reform come on this one; a stroke of the pen and let us get
rid of the Senate. Where would we be?
Right now we have a government that sits in power with its
majority coming from Ontario. Do we want Ontario to run Canada?
I think not. The Reform Party has a mantra that the west wants
in. It would certainly be a heck of a lot harder for the west to
have its voice heard if it was simply an Ontario or Quebec based
government. Now we have the opportunity for the check and
balance because we have the other house to call on when
necessary.
We talked about an elected Senate. I have to honestly say that
I have not got my head around this one yet. I have tried to
analyse it; I have tried to look at all the pros and cons which
is obviously something some of the members in the Reform Party
and the NDP have not done. They simply like to push the button.
I looked at the American system. The member from Regina said
that we look at other jurisdictions and what is good and what is
bad. I look at the American senate which is elected. I see an
administration of one political stripe and a house and senate of
another political stripe. They get nothing done. They stop each
other. They block each other. That is not good for democracy
either. I am not so sure that the elected side of it should be
there.
Let me talk about the reform in the Charlottetown accord. We
talked about term limitations, something that everybody here
should talk about and discuss logically. At one point in time a
senator was appointed for life. That was wrong. Now senators
are appointed until age 75. That too may be wrong. But what are
the solutions? Should we have term limitations? Perhaps.
Personally I could support a term limitation on the appointment
of a senator.
It was also mentioned there should be some gauge as to what the
efficiency and the effectiveness was for an individual. I agree.
There should be gauges, attendance requirements and effectiveness
and efficiency standards that have to be met. There is nothing
wrong with that. We do it in the House. Our gauge and our
standard is obviously an election. The Senate should have gauges
and standards as well.
We should also talk about the effectiveness of the Senate and
how it could be more accountable to the public it represents. The
example was given that the senator from Regina has not been seen
in Regina. That is wrong. A senator who is appointed to a
provincial responsibility and jurisdiction should represent that
responsibility and jurisdiction. That is part of the
restructuring that should go on within the Senate, but it should
not be a stroke of a pen abolition because it is not good
governance for this country.
It was also said that senators do not do anything. I just gave
the House the example of Bill C-4 which was very important,
although the member from the NDP decided that Bill C-4 was not a
very important piece of legislation. Probably because he agreed
with Bill C-4 we disagreed with it.
Members of this House were treated as fools when Bill C-55 was
put through. There was an urgency because we were going to
protect the Canadian heritage. We were going to make sure that we
would not back down from the Americans. It was a piece of
legislation that was absolutely necessary.
Where is Bill C-55 now? The only people who held up Bill C-55 to
have it checked by the Canadian public was the Senate.
2050
This government will be accountable for that. It was the wrong
way to put that legislation through, it was the wrong legislation
and it will be accountable. The only one that had the
opportunity to bring that out in the open was the Senate.
Bill C-78 is a piece of legislation that came through the House
because the Liberals are the majority. It was to take pensions
away from superannuates. Thirty billion dollars will be taken
away from Canadians because the government has a majority, but
the bill has not passed the Senate. There will be accountability
to the government because we have that check and balance.
Do not get me wrong. I said earlier that I believe very
strongly there has to be some restructuring, but to sit here and
say that we will not approve a $50 million budget for the other
House is balderdash. It is not the way to do it.
I am disappointed and frustrated that we are not talking about
real issues. Canadians should be able to deal with real issues.
Canadians should have an opportunity to speak to real issues such
as services that should be delivered by this government and that
are not being delivered.
We waste our time talking about a budget of $50 million instead
of the billions of dollars being wasted by this government or the
billions of dollars being taken by this government from
legitimate Canadians. Why? Because Reform wants to Senate bash.
That is all it wants to do. It is the hot button politics of the
Reform Party. Frankly, Canadians are losing when they have
representation from the Reform Party.
A member of the NDP said that if most constituents would not
support the Senate. In New Brunswick, most Canadians spoke and
they did not support the NDP. There is one NDP member. In
Ontario the constituents listened and they did not support the
NDP. It has no official party status in Ontario. I believe in
the electorate. I believe the electorate does the right thing.
In this case, they certainly did the right thing.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Brandon—Souris just stood in this House
and gave a speech. The same leader of his party appointed a
senator 20 years ago, the phantom senator from Regina, a fellow
by the name of James Balfour who has not been seen in the city of
Regina for 20 years.
I wonder whether he was giving this speech to get himself in the
Senate or whether he actually believes that taxpayers' money
should be invested in someone by the name of James Balfour, a
senator who has not been to Regina in the 20 years I have been
around. I have never met the guy. Regina is a small city with
about 200,000 people. I have been in public office off and on
and have been involved in community associations for about 26
years. I had never heard of this guy. He was appointed by former
Prime Minister Joe Clark, a friend of James Balfour. I guess
James Balfour disappeared at the same time Joe Clark did because
we have not seen Joe Clark for about 10 or 20 years either.
I wonder whether the Conservative member for Brandon—Souris
continues to support the Senate when Conservatives in
Saskatchewan, 18 former elected Conservatives were jailed because
of the corruption they were involved with. One was the former
deputy premier, Eric Berntson, who is now a senator. After years
of gouging Saskatchewan taxpayers he was appointed to the Senate.
He was found guilty on a number of fraud charges and breach of
trust and now he is being paid as a senator as a result of the
wonderful Conservative Party.
2055
How long does the hon. member for Brandon—Souris believe the
taxpayers of Canada should be supporting convicted felons such as
Senator Michel Cogger and Senator Eric Berntson to the tune of
about $500,000 a year for them, their expenses and their offices
each before we toss them out because of their convictions in the
courts? How much longer will this member support the subsidy of
these individuals who have gouged Canadians for far too long?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I think even the member
of the NDP who obviously is a bit of a socialist would agree that
individuals are in fact innocent until proven guilty and have
gone through all the opportunities for appeal. I am sure that
every member would defend that aspect of our judicial system and
of our communities.
Again I would say that we as parliamentarians, even though the
hon. member may not agree with this, do not do a very good job of
keeping that side of the House in order. There are others in
this parliamentary system who are required in order to have that
check and balance and that control. For a $50 million budget, I
certainly have no difficulty in keeping that house.
However, and I am sure the hon. member did not listen very well
when I said it, that does not mean there should not be some
changes. That does not mean the status quo must stay. That does
not mean there should not be some restructuring within the Senate
itself. We would have done that a long time ago had those
members supported the Charlottetown accord. Instead, they voted
against the Charlottetown accord. That would have been in place.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I and
other members of this place, some of whom are in the House today,
went through a fairly exhaustive process of gathering petitions
from across the land. Media outlets, such as the Sun
newspaper chain and QR77 radio, put out their own forms of Senate
petitions. I collected petitions on the whole idea of Senate
reform and Senate election. Other members of the House collected
petitions on the issue of Senate abolition. I do not think that
those people felt as though they were heard. They did not get
responses from senators or from the Prime Minister's office.
The hon. member talked about phoning senators and the Prime
Minister's office. The member of the NDP mentioned the number. I
have a note here that if somebody wants to call the Senate I
believe the number is 1-800-267-7362. I ask the hon. member if—
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As you can obviously see, and certainly anyone watching
on TV can see, the hon. member is holding up a prop. He is
writing on the back of it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
South Shore is quite correct. It is inappropriate to use a prop
in the House and I accept the admonition. I should have stopped
it immediately. I did check on my monitor and it was impossible
to read, the hon. member will be unhappy to know.
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, I apologize.
I ask the hon. member of the Progressive Conservative Party, was
the number 1-800-267-7362 to call senators? There was a question
about the Prime Minister as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): If the hon. member
gets away with it once, shame on me. If he gets away with it
twice, really, that is it.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was
anything of any substance in those comments.
Actually people do not have to call the 1-800 number. If they
wish, they can call my office and I will put them in touch with
the senators I know with their personal phone numbers. Those
phone numbers are listed, so I am sure the hon. member could find
them.
The hon. member spent a lot of time, effort and energy getting
petitions to abolish the Senate.
2100
I think the hon. member would have been much better suited had
he gone out and spent that time and energy trying to find out
from those same constituencies where the Reform was going. What
was it going to do? Was it going to go to the UA, to three
parties or just disappear like most Canadians would like?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise because I was fascinated by the remarks of the hon. member
for Brandon—Souris.
I am looking for the right adjective. I thought it was perhaps
a cathartic address, but I will settle for the notion that his
remarks were fertilizing in an atmosphere where one badly
demanded ideas.
May I ask if he, as a partisan of the Senate, will join the
movement to give British Columbia, rightly recognized as the
fifth region of Canada, 20% of the seats in a reformed, elected
Senate? Would he join us in that? We would be prepared to allow
Manitoba to share a third of another 20%.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba already has the
third of the 20% of the seats. We have seven senators currently
in the province of Manitoba.
An hon. member: No you don't. You only have six.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Six senators, excuse me. I was
looking for the one from Regina. I missed that one.
An hon. member: Even you don't know where he's at.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know where he's at. I was
looking for the seventh senator.
I very honestly suggest to the hon. member that obviously would
require a constitutional change. I am prepared to look at
anything that will give better representation to the country. I
will also look at making sure that there is a fair and honest
distribution of those senators.
Earlier in my dissertation I said that I had not gotten my head
around elections just yet. However, I feel very strongly that in
part of that reform we should look at the possibility of
provincial governments playing a much more active role in the
appointment process, not necessarily the appointments but the
appointment process of senators to the Senate of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to this fundamental question of supply for
the maintenance of the Senate of Canada.
To begin with, I need hardly point out that the Bloc Quebecois
is against granting any such supply, in whatever amount, to the
upper chamber, because our party proposes its abolition pure and
simple.
This was the position we took in our 1993 election platform. It
is a position that still has unanimous support among our
members. The reason I am taking this position in the House
today is not just because it was part of our election platform
in 1993.
There are obviously a number of empirical, objective arguments
underlying this position.
First, let us start by pointing out that this institution, which
is the Upper House of Canada's parliament, has no basis in the
realities of Quebec or Canada. Let us look back at the context
in which it was created.
The British Parliament in London, which is in a way, as
anglophones say, the mother of the British-type parliaments, is
obviously a bicameral parliament, with an upper chamber, the
House of Lords, and a lower chamber, which is the House of
Commons.
In the case of the House of Commons, the parallel, the link
between the House of Commons in London and the House of Commons
here in Ottawa, is very easy to make.
As regards the House of Lords, they wanted to create a similar
House when Canada was born, when they realized, horror of
horrors, that there was no nobility in Canada. So they could not
create a House of Lords on the same principle and model as the
one in London. They therefore created something a little bit
different, drawing on the model in London.
In the United Kingdom, as we know, there is hereditary nobility,
which is passed from father to son or from mother to daughter
now. There are counts, viscounts, barons, dukes, duchesses and
so on. There are also nobles who are given titles which are not
hereditary.
2105
This has been the case of a number of Canadians in history, such
as Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir George-Étienne Cartier, but these
people could not pass their nobility on to their descendants.
They wanted to create something similar here in Canada, since in
the middle of the 19th century, in Quebec for example, the
seigniorial system had been abolished. So there was, properly
speaking, no more native or local nobility in Canada.
Accordingly, they created a system that made it possible to
basically appoint people and give them the nobility by
appointing them to the Senate, not by giving them a title but
by giving them the title of senator.
Hon. members will recall that initially appointment was for
life, until it was realized in the 1950's and 1960's that having
senators for life had, one might say, lowered the level of
debate in the other place, it having become a rather—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Aging.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: —aging place, to say the least. At that
time, the decision was made to do away with the notion of
appointments for life and to drop the age to 75, which is far
earlier needless to say.
The first finding is that this institution, which has absolutely
no connection with our reality, is obsolete, archaic and
totally devoid of any meaning to the people of Canada or Quebec,
or any connection to their lives.
Second, this House ought to promote and defend the interests of
the various regions of Canada. A noble objective, if ever there
was one, but it became quickly apparent that far from defending
the interests of the regions, the institution was far more what
one might call an asset for the government by defending the
interests of the party in power.
I am weighing my words carefully but that chamber has, over the
years, for all intents and purposes, turned into a veritable den
of patronage in that the nominations go to friends of the
party, friends of the regime.
They would never have gone as far as to appoint people of other
political persuasions, which has meant that the other place has
representatives of only two parties despite the fact that there
are five parties represented in the House of Commons. In the
upper chamber only the two parties that have divided the power
ever since Confederation are represented, in other words the
Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. They are
surprisingly in favour of allocating supply to the upper
chamber.
That chamber, which was intended to defend the regions, has
finally come to defend the interests of the government far more
than those of the regions. It is not representative of the full
political spectrum represented here in the House of Commons.
Furthermore, I think it should be pointed out that this House,
as I said, whose job it was to defend the regions, does not
represent the full range of the political spectrum of the
regions. For instance, there are New Democratic governments in
western Canada. Are these governments represented in the upper
chamber? Of course not. There is a sovereignist government in
Quebec. Are the interests of the sovereignist government of the
national assembly, with its sovereignist majority, represented
in the other place? Of course not.
So the initial purpose for which the other chamber was created,
which was to defend the interests of the regions, also no longer
holds.
The other factor is that this chamber is a somewhat dusty
institution that has accomplished the feat—if feat it be—of
breaking the records for unpopularity and lack of credibility,
even beating out lawyers and politicians according to the polls.
That takes some doing.
Joking aside, we unfortunately have an image of the Senate
as an institution where people go to live out their retirement
years in peace, after loyal service to the party in power, and
where there is really no incentive to do more than is necessary,
where people can pursue their professions on the side thus
building up their income.
2110
There are, of course, extreme cases—former Senator Thompson comes
to mind—who do serious damage to the Senate's credibility in the
eyes of the public. The public, which should normally have
faith in its political institutions, sees one of the Houses of
Parliament as completely discredited and no longer has any faith
in them at all.
This parliament, according to the advocates of federalism in
this House and throughout Canada, is a model of democracy around
the world. Yet one of the Houses that pass the laws of this
country is appointed by the Prime Minister. What is the
democratic prerogative of such an institution? Is the presence
of the Senate in this parliament not a democratic disadvantage
in this great country, which wants to be an example for the
world as a whole?
There are few countries around the world that are real
democracies and of those there are few around the world that
may boast of having their Houses appointed by the Prime
Minister, appointments that are basely and blatantly partisan.
We should look at the relevance of having such a House, which
costs taxpayers a minimum of $50 million annually.
We need only look at the situations of manifest suffering in a
number of ridings, and even in all ridings in the country to
various degrees. I am thinking of the riding of my colleague
from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which has the highest rate of poverty
in Canada.
How can his fellow citizens allow an institution that costs $50
million annually to continue to survive while they can barely
make ends meet? These people experience anger, confusion and
indignation.
We could say that in any self-respecting democracy the presence
of two Houses is a guarantee of balance and against the
appropriation of power by a single House.
The people in this non-elected House on the other side are simply
there because of service rendered to the government opposite and
therefore really do not need to take the interests of the public
to heart. I say that with an aside because there are, needless
to say, and we all know some of them, senators who give fully of
themselves and work very hard.
The problem is not so much the individuals making up the
institution, although for most of them, for the reasons they
were appointed, it may in fact be a problem. But the institution
itself, because of its nature, is the source of the problem.
How can this institution claim to constitute a balance aimed at
preventing this House, elected by the people of Canada and
Quebec, from gaining the upper hand? Every single provincial
legislature has got rid of their legislative councils. The last
one to do so, the Quebec National Assembly, abolished its
legislative council in 1968, if I am not mistaken.
Could the supporters of the Senate dare to claim here in this
House that the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National
Assembly are less democratic institutions because they have
abolished their legislative councils? Absolutely not. There is
no connection whatsoever. We are very much aware that the best
guarantee of democracy is the people's choice.
2115
This choice translates into the presence here in the House of
Commons, as well as in each of the provincial legislative
assemblies and the Quebec National Assembly, of representatives
who have been duly elected by their fellow citizens. That is
the true guarantor of democracy, not the presence of a phoney
second chamber which does nothing but serve the partisan
interests of the government.
I submit once again that this House, which is duly elected by
the people, must not lend any credibility whatsoever to the
other chamber by voting supplies to it, which it will spend like
crazy, while in each and every one of our ridings there are
people who can scarcely make ends meet.
I therefore urge every one of my colleagues to oppose this
motion aimed at granting supply to the Canadian Senate.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
the hon. member accept the conclusions of the Pepin-Robarts
commission on an elected Senate, dividing the number of its
members among the five regions of Canada, but with a veto for
Quebec on matters concerning linguistic rights, culture and
similar elements?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I nearly fainted when I
heard my colleague from Vancouver—Quadra candidly suggest the
conclusions of the Pepin-Robarts report.
I was thinking that it was a long time ago the government
opposite shelved this report, not wanting to give it any
credibility or relevance.
We must realize that if this institution had really been
intended to play the role of defender of Canada's regions, it
would not have been created as it was, and even now we would not
maintain it in its present form by simply having the senators
there elected.
These people would, if I could put it this way, challenge the
legitimacy of this House in which we sit.
In addition, for the benefit of our colleague, I would like to
mention two examples of upper houses around the world, which
might originally have provided an example, had they existed, to
Canada's Senate, in the spirit that its creators wanted to give
it.
There is the German Bundesrat, which represents each of the
assemblies of German Landers, or provinces. Accordingly, no
legislation is passed by the German parliament, the Bundestag
and the Bundesrat, without the support of the Landers'
legislatures.
There is another example. The Russian federation council, which
is the upper chamber, the equivalent of our Senate, has two
representatives for what they call there the subjects of the
federation, the equivalent of our provinces.
Generally it is the governor of the province and the president
of the legislative assembly, therefore one representative of the
executive body and one representative of the legislative body of
each of the subjects in the federation, who sit on the council.
In this case, once again, it is very clear that no legislation
may be passed by the Russian parliament without the subjects of
the federation, that is the Russian provinces, giving their
approval.
Therefore, as it exists the Senate is totally incapable of
meeting the initial objective set for it, that is of defending
the interests of the regions.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for his excellent
speech. As a political scientist, he is obviously very up on
these issues.
2120
I would like him to clarify for us what else these supplies,
which we are refusing to approve, could be spent on. They will
very likely be approved because of this government's
overwhelming majority in the House.
For the benefit of those listening today, I would like our
colleague to give some concrete examples of how this $54 million
budget, which will probably be approved for what I might call
purely gerontocratic purposes, could be put to better use.
Could he also give other examples of funds being used to provide
relatively long term care and perhaps examples of areas where
the money would be put to much better use?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question. I think he has hit it on
the head.
With all due respect, I think he would have been in a much
better position than I to give excellent examples of how these
supplies, which are about to be approved for the other place and
the usefulness of which still seems a bit nebulous right now,
could be better spent.
In Quebec, we already have the feeling we are paying for two
structures. We are paying for a provincial member
and for a federal member. We are even paying for a senator
who represents each of our regions. Each senator in Quebec
represents what is called a Senate division.
I doubt there is anyone in Quebec who has the slightest idea
which senator is responsible for the Senate division in which he
lives, since these people are completely absent from the
political scene in Quebec.
That said, as a more direct reply to the question by my
colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, certainly reference could
be made to a number of issues that have been addressed in this
House in recent months and recent weeks, particularly employment
insurance.
The government diverts billions of dollars from the employment
insurance fund, supposedly to cover increased expenses, like
eradicating the deficit, while it would be far easier to get it
hands on some $50 million or $54 million in the other place, instead of
dipping into the pockets of the unemployed, the workers and the
employers across Canada.
Needless to say, it is unacceptable that while social transfers
to the provinces are being cut forcing the provinces to make
some really hard decisions on social and health services and
post-secondary education, we would continue to hand over $50
million annually to this institution that is right next to ours.
This government needs to make some societal choices. At the
moment, the government seems to lean as much to the right as the
whole of Canada does as far as the directions it is taking are
concerned. The choices made by this government are totally
unacceptable. They leave the least advantaged in a precarious
and difficult situation and continue to maintain this sort of
living dinosaur.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one understands the lateness of the hour produces that mixture of
melancholy and euphoria that we have seen at various stages of
the debate this evening.
It is a pity perhaps that such an interesting subject has been
consigned to a late evening session. There has been an absence
of concern or attention in this parliament and perhaps the one
before it with fundamental questions, the large principles of
government. Yet in a way I think we are seeing the creaking and
groaning of parliamentary institutions that are already out of
date and, in some ways in this country, lag behind the creative
changes that have been made in other countries with similar
systems.
In a sense, it is all a consequence of the too exclusive
preoccupation for the last 30 years with the Quebec question
narrowly defined. The narrow definition is not the fault of all
the opposite side of the House. I think the blame lies equally.
One could suggest that the larger solutions for the Quebec
problem would better be obtained in a larger solution of general
constitutional problems, but here we come back again to this
basic principle that it is very difficult, since the Constitution
Act, 1982, to change the Canadian constitution, but it is not
impossible.
2125
The other day I encountered a very distinguished senator and
former member of this House who had to retire because he had
reached the term of years, 75 years. He was complaining that he
was forced to retire at that age. I told him that it was
possible that it was not constitutional to compel retirement for
age. I asked him if he had ever considered invoking the charter
of rights and freedoms.
It would certainly be possible, without going to the provinces,
for the federal parliament to establish within the federal
parliament, with parliamentary power alone, a term of years for
the Senate. It would be possible for this House and the Senate to
make a constitutional amendment limiting future senators to four
years, or eight years or two renewable terms of four years. This
is solely within federal power.
It would be possible to extend the age issue. The only reason I
think the age issue arose is simply because people had enough
sense, 100 years after 1867, to realize a life term was just
unacceptable in the conditions of North America.
The biggest problem in electing a Senate is that it would be a
Senate elected on a basis of regional representation that
reflected the social realities of 1867, the demographic realities
that are totally inequitable today. There is no way in which
British Columbians for example, would vote for Charlottetown or
any other agreement that perpetuated an inequitable division of
the Senate, even an elected Senate.
If we want to change these things we have to go the long route
unless we take the surprising step, but not so surprising in
other countries, of getting a court ruling on the
constitutionality of these provisions of the constitution viewed
in contemporary terms. Why not? Unless we go the ultimate route
of a constituent assembly.
We are, in a certain sense in our parliament at this time,
engaged in a form of low level problem solving largely because
people, in reaction to the failure of the Meech Lake accord and
the failure of Charlottetown, have said they do not want to
discuss fundamental change. There is no particular evidence of
that.
Earlier in the debate, I remember one of the members citing the
example of a Gallup poll that he had consulted, or the
equivalent, and finding that 43% of the people wanted to abolish
the Senate. I wonder if he had asked how many people wanted to
abolish the House of Commons as it is presently constituted.
He might well have found that there was a similar large
public disillusionment with the legislative process.
I think we badly need, on the evidence of this parliament, to
reform our committee structure. We badly need to re-examine the
relationship of executive and legislative power. These are areas
that could be changed without the necessity of going to the
provinces and going through that seven out of ten or ten out of
ten formula. They have largely been left to one side.
I think one of the problems we have with the proposals put
forward today on Senate reform is that they do not recognize the
interdependence of constitutional institutions. If we abolish
the Senate, we will dramatically change the House of Commons as
it is now, and it is presently staggering under its current
burden of office. Something obviously is needed: a little more
comprehensive thinking.
The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were golden periods in terms of
producing a consensus on constitutional change. Let me read the
sort of consensus that emerged: That an elected Senate, if it
were to be achieved, should have the power to ratify all
international treaties; that it should have the power to confirm
nominations or reject nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada;
and that it have the power to confirm ambassadorial appointments
and appointments as deputy ministers. Why not?
It is common in other systems of government. It might have the
power, if the governor general were to be a wholly Canadian
appointment, to conduct the election of the governor general. An
elected Senate could perform the function that we give at
enormous public expense and with a term of years seemingly
without limit to royal commissions of inquiry. Should a
legislative body not be doing that? It is quite obvious that the
House of Commons cannot do it. If we look at the overburdening
and the number of committees and the mandates of the committees
today, I do not think we are able to discharge the functions that
are given to us now.
2130
The cause of Senate reform is I think an interesting one. It
offers the most promise in terms of changes in our federal
institutions, if we can get over this dilemma of constitutional
change.
I noted the comments by the member for Brandon—Souris. He said
that he had help with a wheat bill. I would simply say that I
faced a situation in which a House committee, for some reason,
produced a unanimous report last December. Then, after the
unanimous report had gone to the House, some members decided to
change their minds. Having accepted that a committee obviously
would be well informed on the subject, I read the project and
decided it was not as well informed as it could have been.
Looking for an arena for change, I also went to the Senate and
spoke to senators. I was able at the Senate level, because the
Senate has co-ordinate constitutional powers with the House, to
produce changes which I think are more in line with contemporary
legal thinking.
There is a role for a second chamber, certainly if the House
continues to be overburdened in the way it is with the present
committee structure, which I do not think is very satisfactory
unless we have this unique combination of an experienced and
pragmatic committee chairperson and a good parliamentary
secretary working as a team, and sufficient co-operation or
acceptance of the rules of the game by government and opposition
members. It does occur in some committees, but not in all, and
we have noticed the difficulty in achieving a quorum in
committees in the last few weeks. That is one of the realities.
I welcome the suggestions that have been made. I think the
suggestions for the abolition of the Senate are simplistic. They
ignore the fact that taking the Senate out will dramatically
change the House too. I am not sure that we have yet learned to
assume the new types of burdens that would be placed upon us.
Tackling the issue of how to make reform, as I say, electing the
Senate with the present totally inequitable and unacceptable
basis of regional allocation of the seats, would be a step
backward in time and I do not think we can go that way. But why
not?
One of the suggestions made, which was an interesting suggestion
from outside, was why do we not attempt a mini-Senate reform.
One of the most popular steps the present Prime Minister has
taken has been to appoint senators who, in essence, will serve
for a short term of years only. I think they are among the best
quality senators we have had in a long time. These people,
usually with two or three years to go, were never expecting an
appointment to the Senate, but bring a surprising degree of
expertise and knowledge and a very large degree of pragmatism.
One of the suggestions made, and I know it is taboo to speak of
anything the former Prime Minister in the previous government
introduced, was with respect to the so-called GST senators. It
is a section of the constitution that was forgotten, which had
been raised with me by a thoughtful correspondent. Could we not
in some way correct, partly at least, the regional inequities of
Senate representation by region by using that section and
appointing more senators for those underrepresented areas of the
country, in particular if it was done on a term of years basis,
four years or something else?
I offer these simply because we are not completely in a
straitjacket.
To get movement in the upper House in that way might encourage
the larger type of reform that so many people in all parties
favour.
2135
I look at the expert committees, the Lamontagne-MacGuigan committee,
the Goldenberg commission, the father of the gentleman who is on
the Prime Minister's staff, Pepin-Robarts that I have referred
to, much the best constitutional report that has been made in
Canada in the post-war period.
If we directed our attention to these matters we would see a
time when parliamentarians thought in an ambitious way, looked at
larger ideas, and a great deal of it came across. Except for
certain egregious errors in tactics, the Pepin-Robarts report, as
reflected in Meech Lake, would have gone through. It is one of
those interesting things, the overconfidence of the political
leaders who were directing the situation at that time.
Will we get around to these larger questions? I have raised
this issue. I think the next generation of Canadians will have a
rendezvous with the constitution. I am sure the imbalances, the
inefficiencies that have accumulated in this inherited British
system that we have not kept up to date in the way the British
and other British derived systems have, will become large enough,
and in a very short time from now we might get a movement toward
general constitutional renewal.
If we go the constituency assembly route and we go the usual way
in which constituent assemblies are adopted, we get out of the
straitjacket of the chapter 5 amending sections of the
constitution.
I could say more, but the hon. member opposite has pointed out
to me the problem of one of his colleagues who has been waiting
for four hours to speak and time is running away, so I think I
will cut short my remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to thank my colleague for his speech. I know he takes a great
interest in these matters.
I will share a fond memory with him. When I was doing my MA
with Professor Edmond Orban, our required reading was texts that
he had written as a law professor at the university.
I am a bit surprised at the vigour with which he is defending
the Senate at a time when there is, in our ridings—in any event,
it is very obvious in Quebec, and I am sure that my colleagues
from Quebec, whatever side of the House they sit on, will agree—a
push for increased democracy and for putting citizens at the
heart of that democracy.
I invite the member to read what one of our excellent focus
groups had to say about citizenship and democracy, because we
are engaged in a process of renewing and giving concrete form to
the sovereignist discourse.
I have trouble seeing how we could be interested in reforming
the voting method.
Why would we want people to have increased authority in the form
of petitions, with the possibility of setting in motion
mechanisms leading to public consultations? We are very
involved in reviewing the role of members, yet the member for
Vancouver Quadra is saying that there is an advantage to keeping
the Senate and that we must rediscover this chamber.
The Senate has no democratic foundation. This is well known.
This does not mean that there are not individual senators who
can earn our respect through their diligent efforts. I could
mention senators Prud'homme and Beaudoin. There are, of course,
some excellent people but it is the institution that is the
problem.
I ask the member the following question: Is it not fortunate
that there is a widespread push in civil society for increased
democracy, and is this democratic fervour among members of the
public not incompatible with maintaining an institution as
outmoded as the Senate?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to remind
the hon. member that the best idea to come out of the quiet
revolution advocated by the great Jacques-Yvan Morin and a few
other scholars was the recommendation for a reformed Senate on
condition that it be divided 50:50 between francophone and
anglophone regions, but the idea of a second chamber had the
approval of intellectuals during the quiet revolution.
2140
I might also refer my friend to my most recent book,
Constitution-making.
[English]
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to lead into my question with a quote, which states:
I...support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a
restructured and revitalised Upper Chamber can give Albertans a
voice in the governance of Canada. If elected Liberal leader, I
pledge to work for a Senate that is elected, that has legislative
powers of its own, and contains strong representation from all
regions of Canada.
That was said on June 23, 1990 at the Liberal leadership
convention. It gets better.
The same individual said on September 24, 1991, as reported in
Hansard: “A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a
Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”.
The same individual, speaking to 400 delegates at the annual
general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal
Party in 1990, said: “The Liberal Government in two years will
make it (the Senate) elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps
to make it happen”.
The same individual went on to say to the Toronto Star on
February 2, 1990: “You want the triple E Senate and I want one
too”.
The same individual, who I will reveal to the House, went on to
say once again, as reported in Hansard on May 14, 1991:
“As I said before, and repeat, reform of the Senate is extremely
important. I believe in it”.
The same individual said on February 1, 1997 to the Calgary
Herald: “If he names him”, referring to Senator Stan
Waters, “that's the end of appointed senators who are not
elected”.
The same individual, speaking to Prime Time News on the
CBC on December 29, 1992, said: “I know that in western Canada
they were disappointed that there was not, there's the Senate,
because they wanted to have an equal Senate and an elected Senate
and I thought it was a good thing to do”.
Only one man could make that type of speech. Only man could
make that quote. It is the same individual who also said “I'm
not interested in patronage because I'm a Liberal” to 600 people
in Edmonton, which was reported in the Windsor Star on
February 2, 1990.
I leave members with one last quote: “I didn't want to be
trapped into making decisions on patronage, local contracts, and
appointments that cause so much friction and bad blood”. That
is found at page 196 of a book which he wrote in 1985 called
Straight from the Heart.
I put it to my hon. colleague: Who could that person be?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been
already established that it was Dr. Randolph White, Jr. who is
the author of these well known remarks. It may present him with
some problems of explanation to his colleagues. I think honour
is due where it falls.
He is known for his ways of eloquence in support of a chamber
which Plato said should be reserved for those who made their mark
in life, who gained the top of their professions and who are
prepared to serve without salary. That is the Platonic
conception and Dr. Randolph White has made this a leitmotiv to his
own career, which has brought us all waves of brilliant oratory
and an example that stands out to this country in a period of
cynicism and despair, leading the charge to the new world and the
new world order.
2145
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Abbotsford.
The person I was talking about and those copious quotes I just
read in favour of Senate reform were from none other than the one
who sits across the way from us, the Right Hon. the Prime
Minister.
There are substantive, clear, demonstrable reasons that once the
Prime Minister won the Liberal leadership in 1990 and was elected
in 1993 he changed his mind.
One reason was Lorna Milne, a former Liberal riding president
and a Liberal Party worker who was appointed on September 9, 1995
and is now sitting as a senator. I think another reason was
Joseph Landry, a former Liberal member of the legislative
assembly who was appointed on February 26, 1996. I also think
another reason was Joan Cook, a provincial Liberal candidate and
loyal Liberal worker who was appointed on March 6, 1998.
Another reason was Sharon Carstairs, a former Manitoba Liberal
leader and long time ally of the Prime Minister who was appointed
on September 5, 1994. Another reason was Ross Fitzpatrick, a
prominent B.C. Liberal organizer, golfing and business buddy who
was appointed on March 6, 1998. We seem to notice a trend in
recent days with golfing buddies of the Prime Minister.
Another reason was Nick Taylor, the former Alberta Liberal
leader who was appointed on March 7, 1996. Another reason was
Landon Pearson who is married to the son of former Liberal Prime
Minister Lester B. Pearson and was appointed on September 15,
1994. The list goes on.
Another reason was William Rompkey, who refused to appear before
members of the House of Commons that wanted to look at the Senate
estimates. He was a former Liberal member of parliament and a
Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau government appointed who
was in 1995.
Another reason was Catherine Callbeck, former Liberal premier of
Prince Edward Island who was appointed in 1997. Another reason
was John Bryden, a candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick
and someone who managed the Prime Minister's leadership campaign
in New Brunswick in 1990 and was appointed in 1994. Another
reason was Serge Joyal who had a prominent backroom role in the
federal Liberal Party since he lost his Commons seat in 1984 and
was appointed in 1997.
Since 1993 there are 34 reasons the Prime Minister has gone
ahead with what he has done with the Senate and not carried
forward on his 1990 promises when he was elected Liberal leader
and when he was elected Prime Minister in 1993. There are
currently four vacancies. If the government holds term until the
year 2001, this mandate would allow it another 14 reasons, for a
total of 52 reasons the Prime Minister has gone back on his word
with regard to Senate elections. Senators are obsessed but the
truth shall be known.
I wanted to put those reasons on the record because they are
very important. I ask all hon. members to keep in mind that no
one in the country can get away with only working one day in the
spring and one day in the fall and getting a 16% budget increase
in two years, for a total of $50 million plus.
I ask members in good conscience to apply their own good
judgment when voting on the Senate estimates.
2150
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several questions to ask my colleague which may
take a few minutes.
When we are talking about the Senate, I often sit back and
wonder what life might be like in Canada had the Senate been
elected, equal and effective. Let us take, for instance, some of
the laws and changes that went through the House of Commons and
were rubber stamped by a group of partisan individuals in the
other place who basically take the legislation from the House and
rubber stamp it.
I can think of some things that happened recently in the House
of Commons. For instance, the age of consent for young people to
have sex was 16 years old at one time. The government in its
wisdom changed that to age 14.
Had there been a non-rubber stamp Senate, I do not think that
would have happened. The place called the place of sober second
thought would probably have gone around the country and tested
the grassroots feelings in this regard. It probably would have
come back and said that the average Canadian did not want the age
of consensual sex to go from age 16 to 14. Had the Senate been
effective and had the authority to turn that back, this would be
a different country today.
Let us look at some other things that happened. Three years ago
the government changed the fact that the Lord's Prayer was
read in the House of Commons. Would that have occurred if the
Senate had been effective and elected, with no particular ties to
the government? After talking to some senators, I think the
answer is no.
The fact is that the government said it shall occur. It was in
majority and its good old boys in the other place would rubber
stamp it because they are in majority as well. That is the
problem with an unelected Senate which is not effective.
People across the country are wondering why it is, with all the
good people in opposition, that laws get passed anyway, even
though they are unpopular and even though there is a Liberal
government elected with 38% of the vote. The fact is that
legislation does not have to be checked through grassroots
individuals. It just has to come in from cabinet and passed by
telling people to put up their hands. Then it goes over to the
Senate and the good old boys are told to stamp it because that is
what they are there for. That is totally improper.
Does my colleague believe that Canada would be a different place
if the Prime Minister were not appointing his friends to the
Senate?
Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister of the
land had abided by his promises when he was running for Liberal
leader in 1990 and if he had abided by the mandate that was given
him when he won the election in 1993, the Senate would be a 34%
different place than it is today. It would be well on the way to
being an elected and effective place, which he said he wanted to
see in the country.
2155
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
now that I have the full attention of the real guy who is
standing here, I would like to make some comments pointed to the
Prime Minister. He often says in question period, after we go
at him with this Senate issue, that the Reform Party is
responsible for having an unelected Senate.
What the Prime Minister does not say to most Canadians is that
at that time there was one Reform member in the House of Commons.
It was a number of provinces and millions of Canadians who did
not go for the Charlottetown accord. For the Prime Minister to
give us—
An hon. member: Who was that one member?
Mr. Randy White: That one member is here too. Here she
is, the member for Beaver River. Now that we have the Prime
Minister and the member for Beaver River, let us have a contest
to see who is right.
The point is that many Canadians voted against it. I want to
talk about one issue I am particularly concerned about, and that
is drugs. The problem in the country, as I said before, is that
the government has the majority. Even though it was elected by
38% of the people in the country, it has the audacity to bring in
its own agenda and not the agenda of the people.
I keep referring in the House to the drugs on the street and the
drug addiction on the street. The problems with drugs in the
country are very serious. We keep raising in the House of
Commons that addiction in prisons, of all places, is at a
critical stage. We keep coming back to it and the government
keeps saying that it will study it. We are long past that
situation.
I go to various cities to talk to various people about this
problem. In Vancouver there are some 4,000 to 5,000 addicts. In
British Columbia there are 15,000 addicts. They do not
understand some things. They do not understand why we spend
money on foolish projects and in many cases not one red dime
comes from the federal government to areas that need it such as
to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol.
I see a mess in front of me in the waste report produced by the
public accounts chairman. This is not a prop. This is reality.
It talks about $1,057,933 for the Canadian Canoe Museum. That is
just one item, but if we talk to people on the streets who need
money to help those who are addicted, they ask what is more
important.
Where are the priorities of the government? Members across the
way do not know what they are talking about. How is it that the
Canada Council used $55,000 of taxpayers money to bankroll a
lesbian porno film titled, Bubbles Galore? The movie won
the best film award at the Freakzone International Festival of
Trash Cinema in France.
How is it that we spend $55,000 of the taxpayers dollars on that
trash and do not have one red dime to help those who are addicted
on the streets? Why is that?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I must interrupt the
hon. member at this time.
Before I put the question, I would like to advise the House that
the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert will
be answered by the Speaker after members have been summoned to
the Chamber.
2200
[Translation]
It being 10 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put
forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
Call in the members.
2225
Before the taking of the vote:
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
APPROPRIATION BILL—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: Order, please. I am now prepared to give my
ruling on the point of order raised earlier this evening.
[English]
The hon. member for St. Albert earlier tonight raised a most
interesting point of order challenging the notion of multi-year
appropriations and I thank him for doing so.
I must confess that ever since the supply bill was made
available to members earlier today, I have had several
discussions with the Clerk and his assistants on the very matter
raised by the member.
The House is quite aware of the concept of the fiscal year which
runs from April to March, and the concept of the yearly
appropriation bill which must be based on the estimates for a
fiscal year and which must be adopted by parliament to cover the
government's expenses for that fiscal year.
[Translation]
We are very familiar with these notions of fiscal year and
annual appropriations, which are the cornerstones of our
parliamentary financial process.
[English]
After having looked carefully at the supply bill which is now
before the House, I am satisfied that indeed it is based on the
main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. Indeed
that fact is well expressed by the short title of the bill which
reads in clause 1 “Appropriation Act No. 2, 1999-2000”.
The multi-year appropriation authority covered in schedule 2 of
the bill is based on legislation approved by parliament in 1998
by which Parks Canada Agency is granted the authority to carry
over to the end of 2000-01 fiscal year the unexpended balance of
money in fiscal year 1999-2000. But in my view, that money is
originally appropriated for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. Despite
what the long title says, we are still talking here about a
yearly appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1999-2000. What is
included in schedule 2 and referred to in clause 2 is there
strictly for information purposes.
My ruling is therefore that the supply bill is properly before
the House.
However, I must express strong reservations about the reference
in the long title of the bill to two financial years. The
reference is not at all needed and is in fact, in my view,
misleading. It is obviously too late in the supply process to
envisage an amendment to rectify that anomaly, unless of course
the House were to proceed immediately to do so by unanimous
consent.
In any case, I do hope that in future supply bills the
government will ensure that the title reflects that the
appropriation requested from parliament, in keeping with our
longstanding practice, is for the single fiscal year covered by
the estimates.
I want to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his
vigilance.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Based on the ruling which you have just given, I would seek
unanimous consent to change the title of Bill C-86 to “an act
for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000”.
2230
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—NISGA'A TREATY
The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion and of
the amendment.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
2240
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 219
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the Reform
opposition motion concerning the Nisga'a treaty.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the
New Democratic Party vote of nay to this motion, the member for
Yukon who has just arrived.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood
– 220
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
ALLOTTED DAY—MARRIAGE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division
on the main motion relating to the business of supply.
The question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2255
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
|
Augustine
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hart
|
Harvard
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Konrad
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 216
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Brison
| Caccia
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
DeVillers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Gagnon
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Graham
| Guay
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Nystrom
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis – 55
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion, as amended, carried.
* * *
MAIN ESTIMATES, 1999-2000
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PARLIAMENT
The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several recorded divisions on motions relating to the main
estimates standing in the name of the hon. President of the
Treasury Board.
I wish to inform the House that Motions Nos. 9 to 184 standing
in the name of the President of the Treasury Board will not be
put to the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt to the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2305
[Translation]
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to
inform you that the Progressive Conservative members present
will vote yes on the motion.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. We have a little bit of a
different situation. I would ask this question: Are there any
more people who wish to vote nay on this vote? If there are, I
would like them to stand now.
It is rather unusual, but because we are
taking a vote one by one, if those who want to vote yea have not
already done so, I invite them to do it now.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 164
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 112
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE NO. 90—CANADIAN HERITAGE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board' Lib.) moved:
That Vote 90, in the amount of $59,170,000,
under CANADIAN HERITAGE—National Film Board—Revolving Fund,
in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000
(less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would
find unanimous consent to
have the members who voted on the previous motion recorded as
having voted on the motion now before the House, with the
Liberal members voting yes.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding Bubbles
Galore, we are voting no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote against this motion.
2310
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members present will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the independents
present in the House, we vote no.
The Speaker: So there will not be any confusion, the
members who are standing, I would like them to declare which way
they will vote.
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dockrill
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 165
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 111
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
2315
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, just for my clarification,
if we have not voted on Vote 1 under Public Works and Government
Services, I would then ask the House if we could have unanimous
consent to propose that members who voted on the previous motion
be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea, and then I will follow afterward with
an application on the other motions.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed in
such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 1—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $1,520,010,000, under PUBLIC WORKS AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 (less the amount voted in Interim
Supply), be concurred in.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote no to this motion
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no to
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members present will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of
York South—Weston, I would vote yes.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items under Public Works and Government Services: Votes
Nos. 5, 10, 15, 25 and 30.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 5, in the amount of $314,672,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 10, in the amount of $7,756,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Old Port of Montreal Corporation
Inc., in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2000 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 15, in the amount of $3,045,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Queens Quay West Land
Corporation, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 2000 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be
concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 25, in the amount of $1,888,685,000, under PUBLIC
WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation—Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 (less the amount voted in
Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30—PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT
SERVICES CANADA
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That Vote 30, in the amount of $142,100,000, under PUBLIC WORKS
AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES CANADA—Canada Post Corporation in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
(The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7
and 8 carried.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2000, except any Vote disposed of earlier today and less the
amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote no to this vote.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative
members present will vote no to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of
York South—Weston I would vote yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
2320
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-86, an act for granting to
Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of
Canada for the financial years ending March 31, 2000 and March
31, 2001, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the second
time and, by unanimous consent, referred to committee of the
whole.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: We are now in committee of the whole on
Bill C-86.
(On clause 2)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, far
from the reservations expressed earlier by the Speaker regarding
the title, could the President of the Treasury Board please
confirm that this bill is in its usual form and explain the
specific changes relating to the long title of the bill and
schedule 2 of the bill.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Chairman,
the form of this bill is essentially the same as that passed in
previous years.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I did ask the President
of the Treasury Board to explain the specific changes relating to
the long title of the bill and to schedule 2 of the bill.
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman, an additional schedule
has been added to this appropriation bill. Schedule 2 contains
Canadian Heritage, Parks Canada Agency which is the first agency
to be granted multi-year appropriation authority. This was
provided for in the Parks Canada Agency Act, Statutes of Canada
for 1998, chapter 31, subsection 19(2) which states:
The unexpended balance of money referred to in subsection 1
appropriated by any act of parliament for the purpose of making
operational expenditures of the agency lapses at the end of the
fiscal year following the year in which the money was originally
appropriated or at the end of any longer period that may be
specified in the act.
Pursuant to this provision, the authority provided through the
program expenditure vote for the Parks Canada Agency will not
lapse until March 31, 2001.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
2325
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you seek the
unanimous consent of the House that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
vote no. I would like you to note the absence of the member for
Calgary Centre.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote no to the motion. The names of the members for
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles de la Madeleine—Pabok and Chambly
should be deleted from the division list.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no to the motion, with the exception of
the members for Richmond—Arthabaska, Kings—Hants, Brandon—Souris,
and Shefford.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would cast my ballot in
favour of the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 121
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
question now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there consent to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
2335
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 128
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Barnes
|
Clouthier
| Guimond
| Laurin
| Mifflin
|
Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the the third time and passed)
The Speaker: It being 11.38 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.)