36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 77
CONTENTS
Monday, April 3, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1110
| NATURAL GAS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Motion
|
1115
1120
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1125
1130
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1135
1140
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1145
1150
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1155
1200
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1205
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
1215
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Motions Nos. 1 and 3
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1220
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16
|
1225
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 18, 19, 21 to 24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, and 37
to 39
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60,
61, 63, 64, 66 to 68, 70, 71, 73 to 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to
90, 94 to 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 to 110, 113, 115,
116, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142 and 143
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Motion No. 144
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 146 to 149, 153 to 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166
to 169, 171 and 172
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1230
1235
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1240
1245
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1305
1310
| Mr. John Maloney |
1315
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1320
1325
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
1330
1335
| Mr. André Bachand |
1340
1345
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1400
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
|
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| BIOCHEM PHARMA INC.
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1405
| WALK OF FAME
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| GRANDS PRIX TOURISM AWARDS GALA
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| CANADIAN CONSERVATIVE REFORM ALLIANCE
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1410
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| QUEBEC ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| RAOUL STUART BLAIS
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| HEALTH
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1420
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CROWN CORPORATIONS
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1430
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1435
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1440
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| CLONING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1445
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1450
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| INFORMATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1455
| TRANSPORT
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ACOA
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1500
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1505
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Report stage
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
1515
1520
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1525
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1530
1535
1540
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1545
1550
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1555
1600
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1605
1610
| Mr. John McKay |
1615
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. John Reynolds |
1635
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1655
1700
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1705
| The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault) |
| Mr. Randy White |
1710
1715
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1720
1725
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1730
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1735
1740
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1745
1750
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1805
1810
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1815
1820
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| The Environment
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
1835
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1840
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 77
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 3, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1110
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I will be speaking in lieu of my colleague from Churchill
River.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent of the House for the hon. member to speak in lieu of the
member for Churchill River?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
NATURAL GAS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (for Mr. Rick Laliberte) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my
colleague, the member for Churchill River, Saskatchewan on his
Motion No. 298. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide
initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and
address environmental concerns and high energy costs.
Debate on this important motion began on June 4, 1999 in the
first session of the 36th parliament. At that time the motion
was called Motion No. 292. My colleague from Churchill River
outlined the need for a national vision in relation to natural
gas distribution. He provided the House with examples of the
social and economic benefits natural gas distribution could bring
to unserviced regions.
Canada is blessed with tremendous natural gas resources. Canada
is the world's third largest producer, and this resource sector
is growing exponentially. Fueling this growth in royalty
revenues is the United States demand, which some day may place
our Canadian domestic needs at risk.
My NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre described, during his
debate on the motion, that gas discoveries were once considered a
curse while drilling for oil. How quickly our resource
priorities change. He outlined the opportunities natural gas
conversion could bring into building retrofits, both in energy
savings and through employment.
The federal government has approximately 50,000 properties and
less than 100 have completed energy efficiency conversions since
the Liberal government began mismanaging energy efficiency
efforts in 1993. Indeed, the House agreed with the NDP member
for Winnipeg Centre on his energy efficiency motion, Motion No.
300. That motion also called on the federal government to take
action to tackle energy inefficiency.
1115
The first hour of debate on Motion No. 298 included comments by
the Reform Party speaker, the member for Athabasca, who supported
the principle of natural gas distribution, but did not support
this motion because it would bring federal interference into an
area of provincial jurisdiction. The NDP agrees that the
provinces and territories should have a say over the natural
resources within their respective borders, but does not propose
federal intrusion. Nor does it propose that a direct
distribution subsidy would be the answer.
For the clarification of the House, the motion is intended to
provide incentives to deliver natural gas to regions without
service.
The member for Athabasca described Alberta's efforts for natural
gas distribution which began in the 1960s. This successful
Alberta program, based on community input and co-operative
templates, could perhaps serve as a template for federal
participation if and when a private or a crown interest expressed
the wish to take up the federal government in an initiative
opportunity.
The Liberal members who have spoken to date on Motion No. 298
have retreated to an outdated and embarrassing ideological
megaproject defence. The federal government is out of the
megaproject business, as Liberal members have stated.
The NDP proposed a national vision, not a chequebook reference,
which appears to be the Liberal policy these days.
We are not proposing to sponsor every pipeline or branch line so
that every home would be linked to this cleaner energy source.
We are asking the House to recognize that there are unserviced
regions in the country, pockets of inefficiency and high energy
costs. We are asking that the House recognize these disparities
of the have and have not communities and to act, to agree that
improved distribution opportunities would be a benefit to the
entire country.
The Progressive Conservative member for South Shore spoke in
support of this motion, citing Canada's faltering commitment to
the Kyoto protocol to address climate change and greenhouse
gases.
Emissions continue to rise while the Liberal government hides
from its responsibility to provide leadership and direction to
ensure a cleaner environment and reduced energy costs for future
generations. The NDP agrees that not enough is being done by the
Liberal government to meet our international obligations to
reverse the damage to our atmosphere which all nations and people
share. The recent budget will provide for further studies and
some immediate action, but falls short of the current
opportunities we could be implementing.
As the finance minister stated in February in reference to
infrastructure priorities for the new century, the issue will be
studied and a proposed vision for Canada will be finished at year
end. If the finance minister and his cabinet colleagues are
committed to a national infrastructure vision for Canada, the
principles of sustainability and a cleaner environment should be
a guiding principle.
The supposed Liberal government commitment to rural and regional
development, to level playing fields for all Canadians across
this great country, requires access to clean and efficient fuel
sources.
The type and availability of energy sources is a key component
for business siting decisions. Where natural gas is distributed,
added economic opportunities follow. Canada's raw resources are
often transported hundreds of kilometres for basic processing,
limiting local economic opportunities and value-added economic
growth.
Quebec and New Brunswick recently addressed natural gas
distribution in the region in February.
Nova Scotia has just started with the offshore Sable Island gas
project, which is going great guns. The problem is that all of
that gas is being distributed to the New England states. It
flows right by Nova Scotia, right through New Brunswick and into
the United States. I have a bit of a problem with that, although
it did provide economic growth for our province and provided many
jobs in that area. We could have done much better and followed
other examples around the world. Gas could have been distributed
in Nova Scotia as well. Eventually those trunk lines will come
to Nova Scotia, but at a much slower pace.
Businesses and enterprises in the New England states will be
starting up their manufacturing plants with natural gas, which is
much cheaper than the coal we use at this time and other energy
sources like diesel and oil. They will be competing head-on with
companies in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. Those
companies in the New England states will have the advantage of
operating with lower fuel costs than our companies. We will be
at a disadvantage for many years, until we have an equal playing
field for natural gas distribution.
I could not allow a debate on natural gas to go by without
mentioning the concerns of the fishermen on our shore waters,
especially in the gulf area. What we have asked for, prior to
any exploration for natural gas, is that a full independent
environmental assessment be done on the effects of drilling or
seismic work in the waters or on the land to ascertain whether
indeed the proposals would be met and that they would take the
environment into consideration first, prior to any exploration,
so that the distribution of the gas would do three things.
1120
First, it would protect the surrounding environment where they
have proposed to drill. Second, it would respect the original
users of that land, whether fishermen, farmers or those involved
in forestry. Third, it would provide our companies in Canada
with the opportunity to obtain a cheaper or more cost effective
fuel resource so that they could compete head-on with the
international markets which are now operating on our own fuel
bases.
There are pipelines proposed in the Mackenzie Valley, to the far
north and in other places. Those lines are all headed south.
The motion put forward by my hon. friend from Churchill River,
Saskatchewan suggests that some of those lines should go east and
west so that we could provide our businesses which are located in
regions where they do not have opportunities for cheaper fuel the
opportunity to compete with their southern neighbours. Fuel
costs are some of the highest costs which those businesses must
incur.
The oil and gas industry described the current rate of natural
gas expansion as a golden era. The NDP agrees, as long as
Canada's strategic interests and its citizens are of priority
interest. What we are basically saying is that we should think
of Canada first and export markets after, very closely of course,
but we need to be able to look after our citizens and businesses
in order to compete in the global economy.
At issue is what is making us sick. Why are health care costs
continuing to skyrocket? Environmental factors in human health
are no longer denied. Southern Ontarians only need to experience
several weeks of smog and deteriorating air quality to agree.
A national initiative to expedite cleaner fuel sources,
co-generation or mixed fuel efficiency could only help in each
instance to improve air quality. Natural gas reduces greenhouse
emissions. There are less particulate byproducts from natural
gas fuel sources.
A national vision to provide initiative opportunities, not just
to intrude on jurisdictions, is the basis for Motion No. 298.
National perspective and true leadership are not bad things. A
national vision gave birth to medicare and the five principles of
health care, and provided the incentive for the great railway and
the linking of Canadian communities and schools to the
information technology sector and the Internet.
A similar effort is needed to begin concrete steps toward a more
energy efficient and cleaner environment for future generations.
I urge all of my colleagues to support Motion No. 298.
It is true that this country had vision in the railway. Now we
have it in trying to link up all of the communities across this
country, especially in rural ridings and outlying areas of Canada
through the Internet, through what are called CAP sites.
We have health care in this country. The Liberals and some
other opposition parties would like to see it go away and turn it
into a two tiered system, but the fact is that we had a national
vision for health care. This basically meant that from one end
of the country to the other, from sea to sea to sea, citizens
would be under the same sort of access to health care. Now it is
being done for the Internet, as it was done for the railroad.
We should do the same thing for energy efficient initiatives.
People in northern Saskatchewan should have the same access to
fuel resources as in southern Ontario or Vancouver or in parts of
Alberta.
I have full confidence that this motion will be given a sweeping
endorsement by everyone once they have debated it and understand
the true effects of it. On behalf of all those communities in
the outlying regions of Canada, in most cases where the resource
itself comes from, I am sure that members of the House, under
careful reflection, would support this motion and move on to
greater and bigger things.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to take
this opportunity to address the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Churchill River, so eloquently presented by his
colleague this morning.
The member is proposing that the federal government subsidize
natural gas expansion projects for remote communities as a way of
reducing the cost of living for residents and achieving
environmental benefits.
The hon. member should be thanked for his interest in this very
valuable natural resource. Natural gas is a clean burning,
efficient, cost effective fuel, which is why it has become one of
Canada's number one natural resources.
Canada also has an abundant supply, with an estimated available
total of between 559 trillion to 630 trillion cubic feet. It is
the stated objective of our government to make Canada the world's
smartest natural resources' steward, developer, user and
exporter. In fact to become the world's smartest resource
developer means, in part, adopting a considered, practical,
market oriented approach that balances the needs of all
interests.
It is this type of approach that is behind the natural gas
success story. It is a thriving, competitive industry that has
followed a course of continuous growth.
1125
In the mid-1980s the crude oil and natural gas markets in Canada
were deregulated. For the Canadian natural gas industry this
resulted in lower natural gas prices and a surge in natural gas
activity.
Since then natural gas production, along with the associated
transmission and distribution infrastructure, has increased at a
healthy and in some cases dramatic pace. Expansions to Canada's
natural gas infrastructure, whether of a local or international
dimension, have been governed by a combination of economic
opportunity, economic viability and technology development.
This is one reason we have difficulty in supporting the hon.
member's motion. It is the government's current energy policy
not to fund megaprojects, but to leave it to the competitive
market to decide what goes forward and what does not. This
policy has not resulted in a stalled natural gas industry. Far
from it. The result has been some very exciting private sector
driven developments, including the expansion of natural gas
distribution and production into new, previously unserviced
regions.
Consider the Sable offshore energy project to which the member
referred. In late 1999 the natural gas resources from the Nova
Scotia offshore began to flow. Sable natural gas was first
discovered in the 1960s, but it has never been economically
viable for production until now. Thanks to new drilling and
production technology and new alliances between oil companies and
engineering and construction contractors, the onshore Maritimes
and Northeast Pipeline will make natural gas available in Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick for the first time.
I am pleased that New Brunswick and Quebec are working together
to extend the Sable natural gas pipeline system to northern New
Brunswick and eastern Quebec as well. On February 28, 2000 the
premier of New Brunswick and the premier of Quebec signed an MOU
to work together in creating a favourable environment to develop
an interconnection between the existing pipelines in their
provinces.
Both premiers have stated very clearly that this project must
proceed on a commercial basis and recognize that successful
pipeline projects must be built on sound economic footings. I
welcome their efforts and wish them success in assembling the
necessary market support to move this project forward.
The building of laterals within a province, such as the hon.
member is suggesting, falls under the jurisdiction of provincial
governments; in the member for Churchill River's case, the
Province of Saskatchewan. In these cases, expanding the
distribution system is the responsibility of provincially
regulated local distribution utilities. For example, in late
1999 TransGas of Saskatchewan completed a $6 million expansion to
four rural communities north of Prince Albert.
Provincial regulators set financial tests for new projects.
Where a project cannot generate enough revenue to justify its
capital cost, the local distribution company will ask potential
gas consumers to make financial contributions, known as grants in
aid of construction, which will bring the project to the point of
economic viability. If converting to natural gas offers an
opportunity for reduced fuel bills, consumers can use a portion
of their savings to finance the cost of conversion.
The most recently available data indicates that there were an
average of 125,000 new residential natural gas hookups per year
in Canada from 1995 to 1997. Of these customer additions,
roughly 70,000 per year resulted from new construction and 55,000
were conversions from other energy sources. What this means is
that fully 48% of Canadian homes are now gas heated on a normal
commercial market driven supply system.
From an energy policy point of view it would not be sensible to
depart from the basic principle that project economics will
decide where laterals can be built.
Let me assure the House that the Government of Canada is also
very sensitive to the fact that many rural and remote communities
face high cost energy and general environmental sensitivity. That
is why the Department of Natural Resources has specifically
designed alternative and renewable energy programs as well as
energy efficiency and conservation programs that will help these
communities meet their energy needs and lower their cost of
living as well as to receive environmental benefits.
Pursuing these initiatives is the most workable, economically
viable and environmentally friendly way of meeting the needs of
rural and remote areas. Adapting these new technologies could
bring these communities savings of $200 million per year, not to
mention significant environmental benefits.
1130
For example, some communities are totally dependent upon fuel
oil that is shipped in at great expense. There are new
technology programs in the energy sector of NRCan that focus on
developing alternative and renewable sources of supply, including
bioenergy, small hydro, wind, photovoltaic and active solar
energy.
In addition to these technology initiatives the department has
developed tools to help communities analyze what kind of supply
source would be reasonable and what they need to do to pursue it.
Another initiative is the development of community energy systems
to improve energy efficiency and to allow better use of waste
heat. Under this approach energy use is reduced by integrating
conventional energy supply, renewable energy sources, energy
demands of the building, transportation and industrial sectors,
and the use of waste heat.
The Minister of Natural Resources is also taking the lead by
working to increase energy efficiency of buildings. Let us
consider this example. In this year's federal budget the
Minister of Finance announced that two funds with a total of $125
million would be created to support investment in green municipal
infrastructure including projects to improve the energy
efficiency of municipal buildings. It is important to develop
the technology but people need to know about it.
Through ongoing information programs and sources the department
is working to get the word out to rural and remote communities
about alternative and energy efficiency technologies. Another
initiative is the establishment of technical training and
certification programs to help develop local expertise, which
contributes to increased self-sufficiency.
One exciting dimension of the work in alternative power and
energy efficiency is its global market potential. An estimated
two billion people in the developing world do not have access to
reliable energy supplies. The world market for Canadian know-how
and technology is substantial. In addition, if Canada becomes
the leading exporter of greenhouse gas technology, this country
will be directly contributing to preventing climate change.
Canada's capacity to develop climate change mitigation
technologies is already proven and it is growing. It is part and
parcel of the overarching objective of the Minister of Natural
Resources to establish Canada as the world's smartest resources
developer. This means continuing to develop alternative and
renewable energy sources and pushing ahead with more energy
conservation and energy programs.
These initiatives are the best options for delivering a lower
cost of living and environmental benefits to rural and remote
communities. They are the wave of the future for rural and
remote areas and for all of Canada.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, undoubtedly the member who
represents Churchill River, Saskatchewan, had good reasons for
bringing this private member's motion to the floor of the House.
I appreciate what his colleague had to say as well.
There is one advantage of being a little older. I remember very
well, having lived in what is a remote area, the first time the
power came to my farm. I got rid of the old 32 volt wind charger
and carrying batteries out of the basement. It also gave me a
great thrill when I watched the natural gas pipeline coming in.
When I heard the member speak, it crossed my mind that the
natural gas pipeline was laid at a speed of about three miles an
hour.
My colleague in his motion is referring to unserviced regions. I
was busy last summer watching a gas line come in from a little
place called Beulah, North Dakota, right beside Bismarck. They
were coming north into the oil fields in my constituency. It was
taking carbon dioxide gas and under pressure making it a liquid.
There was co-operation between two companies and two countries.
A little story about that really angered me this summer. The
contract to lay the pipe from south of the 49th parallel to the
Weyburn oil fields came to a standstill because of government
regulations.
1135
There were piles of steel pipe, grey in colour. I do not know
why they were 52 feet long and only 12 inches in diameter, but
the laying of pipe was stopped at the border. There was no
further development. The reason was that on each pipe 51 feet by
12 inches was indicated. The National Energy Board said, even
though it was going four feet below ground, that had to be
changed into metric. Steel stencils had to be made and each pipe
had to be resprayed before it went into the ground.
I tell the House this story because the member for Churchill
should realize what would have to take place. I am assuming he
is intending to go north into Saskatchewan, and indeed there
would be a number of problems. If it was going north it would
require industry input. Otherwise the cost to go through rocky
terrain would be almost prohibitive.
I do not know of any place where a natural gas pipeline could be
installed above ground. I am not sure if that is possible.
However I do know in Alberta, which has 276,000 kilometres of
natural gas pipeline, that almost half of it is faulty. Can we
imagine what it would be like and the cost to do so? I am not
saying it would be impossible.
We have to look at going into the north in another way. With
the cost of land acquisition and the environment protection which
the north wants and deserves, I am not sure whether it is totally
possible. This looks good on paper. It sounds like it is easy
to accomplish. If we asked the federal government to sponsor it,
what would we do? Would we go back to the provinces where the
utilities remain with them?
Saskatchewan Energy in my province committed $50 million in 1999
to the expansion of natural gas pipelines. That is a lot of
money for me but not a lot of money when it comes to laying
pipelines. It is not a lot of money when it is necessary to go
under a body of water, cross several highways and other
obstacles.
I want members to imagine 50 miles of solid rock and how deep it
would have to be. Natural gas is something like propane. It can
freeze even in tanks that heat homes. Saskatchewan provided its
school buses with propane gas. It has since taken it out because
too many buses would not start at -40°. We would have to make
sure there was some way. It would be extremely expensive.
The revenues of Saskatchewan Energy in 1998 were $367 million
and it made a 10% profit without municipal help, without industry
help and without individual help. It had all these things going
on without environment approval. The bill sounds very good, but
without all these other things being in place it would not work
out. Saskatchewan Energy is having difficulties in that it had
to stop its own program of delivering natural gas to farms
because $50 million would not take up the new customers.
For this reason and many others I cannot support the motion. I
support the intent and I would support a study, but I cannot
support the government becoming involved in a massive project
such as this one. We are not ready for it. I do not think the
groundwork has been done.
For those reasons, and with all due respect to my colleague from
Churchill River, I simply cannot support the private member's
motion.
1140
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 298, presented by
the member of the NDP.
This motion affords us an opportunity to look at our energy
supply programs and forces us to reflect on how energy is being
supplied to Canadians, instead of focusing on exports and on
imagining ourselves as leading exporters of natural gas. The
NDP motion makes us reflect on what should be done here before
getting the idea that we are leading exporters of natural gas
outside Canada, to just about everywhere else, as the Liberal
member has just said.
Canada's natural gas reserves are immense.
They are beyond anyone's imagination. We are talking 500 to 600
trillion cubic metres. Even someone with the most fertile
imagination possible cannot imagine what a volume of 500 to 600
trillion cubic metres would be like. But it does exist.
The NDP's motion comes at an opportune time, as gas prices are
at an all-time high, and some countries are being virtually
strangled by the oil producing countries. This is an important
factor in the issue. I cannot fault the oil exporting countries
for setting prices and export quotas, but why should we not
defend our interests as they do theirs? There is nothing wrong
with that.
Considering that we are talking about 500 to 600 trillion cubic
metres of gas in Canada and considering the return on the
investment—today it would not be profitable, but in the case of
future generations and, perhaps, given a certain kind of
blackmail that will become more prevalent from year to year or
decade to decade because fossil fuel sources are constantly
diminishing and the more we burn the less there is left—we must
find the alternatives sources that are out there.
Of course, the basic price, the cost of a cubic metre of natural
gas must be taken into account, but there are other
considerations including those relating to the environment and
to the usefulness of the product. In light of global warming and
of what was decided in Rio in the early nineties, that is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would the proposal made by the
NDP member not be a step in that direction?
Of course, the cost of extending the natural gas distribution
network all over Canada now would be astronomical. However, we
must begin to think about these options now, because in 25, 50
or 75 years we will no longer be here, but future generations of
Canadians will be at the mercy of countries that may still have
oil, but in such reduced quantities that costs will be
exorbitant, making that oil inaccessible for countries that are
far from the Middle East, such as Canada.
1145
This aspect of the member's proposal is very interesting, and I
think the government should look into this question immediately,
strike a committee in the House, perhaps even a joint committee
with the Senate, call expert witnesses and look at the real
issues. That is not what the government does. It reacts to a
given situation, but advances nothing. I am not the one saying
this. It was Senator Lynch-Staunton who said it in a speech he
gave recently, on March 22 or 28, before the Canadian Club.
He said “Our governments react. They take no initiative, they
propose nothing.
They do not enter into discussion”. This food for thought was
provided by a member of a party that is in a considerable
minority here in this House.
Governments cannot just watch the train go by. They have to
anticipate its passage. They have to be open to the future,
stop thinking about what interests them right now without giving
a thought to future generations.
It is not surprising that, for example, the Bloc Quebecois is in
favour of the New Democratic Party's proposal. In a sovereign
Quebec, as it very soon will be I believe, some things will not
change. The St. Lawrence will continue to flow from the Great
Lakes to the Atlantic, even after Quebec secedes. Ships will
continue to travel it. The prevailing winds will continue to
blow in the same direction.
Quebec is well intentioned. In partnership agreements, in
agreements signed after Quebec becomes sovereign, the
distribution networks, if there are any, like the one covered by
the agreement signed last week between New Brunswick and Quebec,
will continue to exist and to be recognized by a sovereign
Quebec, as by a Quebec within Canada. The fact of being within
Canada at the moment does not strengthen Quebecers' desire to
assume their fair share of the costs of just about everything.
In the case before us, there will certainly be international
agreements, because Quebec will be a nation by then, a
recognized people, a state. There will be international
agreements.
If the Canadian government were to decide right now to take this
sort of step, if it were to decide to look a bit further than
the end of its nose and give some thought to North America's
future from an energy angle, perhaps it would not hesitate to do
some studies, take action, create incentives.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are in agreement. The NDP's suggestion
is an excellent one. The government is not being asked to
provide subsidies or assistance to companies responsible for
extending or maintaining the existing network. At least there
would be tax breaks, such as loan guarantees or some sort of
commitments to serve heavily dependent communities.
My area, Chambly, is not particularly remote, but I have seen
young single mothers faced with an unexpected increase in the
price of heating oil.
The direct result was that one, two or three children in a
household were deprived of things as essential to their
existence as food, because the price of heating oil doubled
overnight. I have seen this. People I know well, some of my
party workers, came and told me. They thought it was terrible,
but it was something that happened.
1150
The government has done nothing about this. It has begun to say
that it would reduce its tax on a litre of gas if the provinces
followed suit. This is a very petty attitude because we know
that the provinces need these revenues in order to help people
like those in my example who are devastated by a sudden increase
in energy costs and who are unable to count on help from the
federal government.
Therefore, I think that members of the Bloc Quebecois and I will
support the proposal of the NDP member in principle.
[English]
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to speak about this subject.
The hon. member's timing in moving this motion is appropriate
considering all the things we have recently gone through with the
fluctuating gas prices.
People on fixed incomes have had to make choices between food
and heat. Governments seem to have their hands tied. They have
been unable to address any facet of this issue nor have they had
any input or impact on the high prices of fuel, heating and
operating businesses.
The proposal in this motion is very timely and we in the
Conservative Party certainly support it. In fact recently the
Conservative government in Nova Scotia felt it was necessary to
provide low income people with assistance so they could afford
heating oil by providing them with a certain amount of money each
month to deal with the increased price of oil. Many people on
fixed on incomes have no extra money. They cannot afford to pay
an extra $100 or $200 a month for heat because they have no other
source of income.
Distributing natural gas to every place in Nova Scotia and
elsewhere in Canada would take the pressure off. It would take
the dependence on foreign oil and oil supplies away from the oil
and energy business. Obviously there are a lot of advantages in
doing this for consumers who live in rural Canada.
In Nova Scotia there is a movement under way and the system is
already in place to distribute gas to the main population centres
first. Then it will go on to the smaller centres, and so on,
until it gets to the point where it will no longer be viable for
the gas distribution companies to go that extra mile. In effect
people in small communities such as Tatamagouche or Advocate in
my riding will pay a fine or a penalty for living away from an
area where natural gas is provided.
In my mind it is not fair that only some people can heat their
homes with a clean, low cost, energy supply that is local,
independent and not subject to international fluctuations of
money and policy by countries on another continent. With natural
gas that comes from a Canadian source, we will have some control
over that and will be able to eliminate the fluctuations in
prices, delivery and sustainability. However it is not fair to
say that residents in some parts of Nova Scotia will be treated
differently from others. We certainly support the motion.
I can think of industries located in small communities in my
riding that will not be able to compete unless they have access
to natural gas if the major centres in Nova Scotia have natural
gas. The major and small centres in New England have natural
gas. More and more the northeastern United States is our
competition. If others have access to our natural gas while
companies in areas like Parrsboro, Pugwash, Tatamagouche and
Stewiacke do not have access to natural gas, those companies are
not going to be able to compete with companies that have access
to natural gas.
Again, it impacts on the standard of living and sustainability
of businesses in the small communities. It impacts on
employment. It means zero growth. People will not invest in
areas where natural gas is not available if they can locate just
a few miles further a factory or facility in an area that has
access to natural gas.
It is more than just the economic issue here. It is the
standard of living. It is the way of life. It is the culture.
It is the ability to raise a family in small communities and stay
there. Therefore we support this motion.
It is incredible that natural gas exports to other countries are
increasing when there are people in our own country who do not
have access to natural gas.
We are sending more and more to other countries, and obviously
the United States, when this gas could be made available to our
own residents.
1155
Again it is not only to provide low cost fuel but it is to
provide a stability in fuel costs. As I said, many people are on
fixed incomes and cannot afford the incredible fluctuations we
have seen over the last few months. Depending on our own supplies
and controlling our own supplies within the country will
eliminate these horrible fluctuations.
There has been a great debate in the House and speculation about
what the government may do. We have seen it go one way and then
the other. First the government said it would not help with the
fluctuations in the energy costs then it said, maybe it would,
maybe it would not. It could do away with all that if everyone
in the country had access to natural gas.
More and more in eastern Canada, because of the free trade
agreements and because of reductions in subsidies for
transportation of goods from central Canada to Atlantic Canada,
we are looking north and south. We are looking to our neighbours
in the northeastern United States as our competition, as our
suppliers and as our customers. We have to be able to compete on
a level playing field with them. If we are pumping our national
gas to them and providing their industries and consumers with our
natural gas, then we have to have access to it as well. It only
makes sense.
There is another benefit of this proposal. There is a huge
correctional facility in the town of Springhill, Nova Scotia
which is in my riding. Its energy costs are enormous. It could
use natural gas to offset those energy costs. It could use it in
combination with the local geothermal energy in Springhill and
reduce the energy costs dramatically. Again, if the natural gas
is only delivered to the major centres, Springhill will not be on
that list for a long time.
An initiative such as the one proposed today would provide some
help in making sure that Springhill gets natural gas in a timely
fashion. The industries there, the government agencies and the
government buildings and facilities would also benefit. That
again would save taxpayers. Perhaps the initiatives would cost
money but there would also be huge savings and it would remove
the instability.
Springhill is unique in that it has an enormous amount of
geothermal energy. There were several deep coal mines in
Springhill. Those coal mines are now filled with hot water. The
coal mines are sealed off but they can be drilled into and the
hot water accessed. It is geothermal energy. Virtually it can
provide free heat in certain circumstances just for the cost of
circulating the water. There is no energy cost as far as
increasing the temperature of the water or any other energy
costs, except to circulate the hot water.
That in combination with the natural gas would create a lot of
low cost energy for that town. It would help economic
development. It would help to attract investment, help to
provide incentives for people and would cost nothing to the
government. It would definitely bring jobs to that area.
We have just gone through this urgent situation this morning. On
the way to the airport I checked the price of gas. Gas is down
five cents a litre this morning from what it was on Friday. That
is a tremendous fluctuation but it could go up again tomorrow the
same as it went down yesterday. That instability is extremely
difficult for people to handle.
If we are going to provide low cost energy to certain parts of
the country it is completely unfair to say some communities are
going to be able operate at much less cost for energy and much
lower overhead than other communities and businesses that cannot.
They cannot compete. Those residents are going to have to pay
higher energy costs. Small communities like Advocate, River
Hebert, Joggins, Nappan and Northport in my riding will not get
natural gas without the initiative that has been proposed by the
NDP.
Completely aside from the economic issues are our Kyoto
commitments. There are deadlines we have to meet on
environmental standards. Projections are that instead of
improving we are getting worse. Natural gas delivered to all
communities in our country would help address those concerns.
The last statistic I saw indicated that we will miss our target
by 26%. In fact, we are already going the wrong way, which is an
incredible problem for our country. We will now have to reverse
our direction even more than before to catch up.
1200
On the weekend I noticed that the auto industry is developing
hybrid cars, which operate on gas, electricity and diesel fuel,
to address the environmental issues. It is spending hundreds of
millions of dollars because of environmental concerns. Again,
natural gas could offset that problem in a quicker way because it
is clean burning.
We in the Conservative Party will support the bill because it is
in the interests of the consumer, the industry and economic
development. It will also help to develop our natural gas
industry. It is in the interest the provincial and federal
taxes. We will all be winners if this bill goes through.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the member for
Churchill for his motion and the fact that he gave thought and
good judgment to such an important issue as natural gas in Canada
and the great resource in industry which that represents.
Speaking of congratulations, I want to indicate that today is a
landmark day. Premier Mike Harris is finally back to work in
Ontario. This is the same Mr. Harris who spent a mere 41 days in
1999 in the legislature. It is good to see him back at work
today. We congratulate him for finally getting back to work
because it is important for him to do so.
The natural gas industry in Canada is a very important engine
when it comes to resources in our great country. It seems to me
that what we on this side of the House have done over the last
while underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada when
it comes to putting in place the kinds of economic indicators and
well-being needed by people no matter where they live in Canada.
I point to the fact that we have the deficit under control,
interests rates are in hand and employment is growing at an all
time record, at least within the last number of decades. There
is still more work to do but the government has consistently and
with great effort ensured that we have been able to do the kinds
of things that were necessary for Canada.
I was thinking the other night that a mere five years ago the
G-7 questioned our performance in terms of what we were doing.
Now we really do have in place the kind of strength in the
economy that is necessary.
Natural gas is a great resource base kind of economic engine
that sustains Canadians in all kinds of matters. It is important
that we give credit for that major engine growth, for its
technological sophistication, for its new export opportunities
and the kind of trade advantages that we have, especially within
the integrated North American economy, vis-à-vis the natural gas
industry. Needless to say, a great many communities across
Canada and thousands upon thousands of Canadians benefit either
directly or indirectly as a result of the kind opportunities
provided by this great energy sector.
As a result of the kind of money and profit that is made in this
area, the Government of Canada and other governments benefit with
public revenues flowing into the coffers. This sustains us and
enables us as governments, either provincial, territorial or
federal, to provide the services that are required by Canadians
in all areas of this great country.
Why should we be optimistic about our future in this area? We
really should be and we must be.
The reason is quite simple. The natural gas sector has
demonstrated repeatedly that it has enormous management acumen.
It has flexibility. It has a technological innovative side to it
and a capital raising ability that is almost second to none in
terms of engines of growth in Canada. We should be celebrating
and congratulating all those involved because it really
underscores one of the fundamental economic well-beings for
Canada.
1205
Let us take a look for a moment at some of the facts surrounding
the natural gas sector and the industry. As has been pointed
out a number of times by members opposite, this is a huge area in
terms of the kinds of reserves that are built-in in Canada. There
is enough to meet not only Canadian demand but export demand well
into the future. That is another great shining light in terms of
what it means for Canada and all Canadians.
I also want to point out by way of fact that the natural gas
industry has demonstrated repeatedly that it can respond to
changes quickly in an ever-changing and especially integrated
North American market. It has the capacity to meet the growing
demand not only of Canada but of the United States as well. We
should again celebrate that fact.
Finally, Canada's energy policy framework has allowed the
marketplace to demonstrate and determine energy prices and supply
without undue government involvement. We should think about that
because it really is important. When the free market system
works, it often works very well in terms of supply, demand and
ultimately how it sets prices. It really underscores the
government's ability to leave unfettered an industry that should
respond in a very systematic and appropriate way to the issues of
supply and demand. I think we have seen over time that the
system works well in this area.
As I have pointed out, we have a plentiful resource base,
unbelievable resources in this area. We have growing markets and
a favourable public policy framework.
By way of looking into the future, I think it is fair to say
that we have an industry that is a shining example of good things
to come. It is an excellent industry and there are tremendous
advantages that will take us well into the next century because
of what it is and how it should be best dealt with.
As has been noted—and other members have stated this as
well—this is a convenient, efficient, safe supply of fuel. It
is clean and it is effective. Faced with the difficult global
challenge of climate change and energy consumption throughout
North America from homeowners to major industrial users, we will
likely be seeking less carbon intensive energy sources. Needless
to say, natural gas fits that bill.
Natural gas is also expected to be the fuel of choice for many
of the electrical generation projects in North America. As a
former chairman of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, I welcome that. I sat
on the board for 10 years. In the production of electricity
there is nothing better than electrical generation projects
speared on by natural gas projects. I think that is important,
and the country as a whole will benefit as a result.
I also want to point out that Canada's industry is well
positioned to meet North America's growing need and demand for
natural gas. Over the past decades, the changes in the gas
sector have been, frankly, phenomenal. Price deregulation and
the unbungling of transmission services have prompted compatible
and competitive business environments.
As we all know, deregulation had an immediate effect on Canadian
and North American energy markets. There was an immediate
decline in the price of gas, which was good not only for
consumers but for industrial users as well. Producers responded
because lower prices required them to aggressively cut costs and
rapidly expand export sales. The end result has been higher
production volumes and, accordingly, increased revenues.
1210
To accommodate the growth in export sales, huge capital
investments were made into new pipelines. With the completion of
projects like the Foothills northern border expansion, export gas
pipeline capacity increased from 4.9 billion cubic feet per day
in 1985 to over 10 billion cubic feet per day in 1998. That is,
by any stretch of the imagination, phenomenal.
Later this year the alliance project will add over 1.3 billion
cubic feet per day more to export capacity. Over the past 10
years Canadian gas exports to the United States have increased by
132%, from 1.3 trillion cubic feet to 3.1 trillion cubic feet
annually. We are selling more natural gas to U.S. markets than
ever before.
What it all means is that we in Canada are well positioned in
this very important sector of the economy. It seems to me
that we should proceed in the manner that we have been proceeding
without going down the path of doing the kinds of things that the
member for Churchill wants but rather proceeding in the fashion
consistent with what we on the government side have been doing.
I urge all members of this great parliament to vote accordingly
on this motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-23, an act to
modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and
obligations, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are 172 motions
in amendment on the notice paper concerning the report stage of
Bill C-23.
[English]
Motions Nos. 2, 6, 8, 11, 17, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30, 34, 36, 40,
42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 59, 62, 65, 69, 72, 77, 80, 83, 85, 92,
93, 97, 100, 103, 106, 111, 112, 114, 134, 136, 139, 141, 145,
150, 151, 152, 159, 162, 165 and 170 cannot be proposed to the
House because they are not accompanied by the recommendation of
the Governor General.
Standing Order 72(3) requires that notice of such a
recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before the
beginning of report stage consideration of a bill.
[Translation]
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
[English]
Group No. 1: Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16,
18, 19, 21 to 24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43, 44,
46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66 to 68, 70,
71, 73 to 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 90, 94 to 96, 98, 99,
101, 102, 104, 105, 107 to 110, 113, 115, 116, 135, 137, 138,
140, 142 to 144, 146 to 149, 153 to 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166
to 169, 171 and 172.
1215
[Translation]
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 14, 91, and 117 to 133.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
I shall now put Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, 19, 21 to 24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43,
44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66 to
68, 70, 71, 73 to 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 90, 94 to 96,
98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 to 110, 113, 115, 116, 135, 137,
138, 140, 142 to 144, 146 to 149, 153 to 158, 160, 161, 163,
164, 166 to 169, 171 and 172 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
1.1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 1 with the
following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 1.1, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 1 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Motion No. 3.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas moved the same motion at
committee as a subamendment and the committee voted it down
during the committee proceedings. Yet, here we are at report
stage of Bill C-23 and the same motion is before the entire
House. Marleau and Montpetit at page 668 reads:
A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected
if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance as to warrant
a further consideration at report stage.
Marleau and Montpetit does not differentiate between amendments
and subamendments. The important point is that it addresses the
fact that any motion that is previously defeated in committee
cannot be introduced as a report stage amendment. Only in an
extraordinary situation should a motion defeated at committee be
allowed to be moved at report stage. Beauchesne's describes this
exception to the rule on page 212 as “special circumstances”.
There does not seem to be anything special or extraordinary
about the procedure followed at committee or on Motion No. 3
itself. Motion No. 3 is no more or less significant than any
other motion proposed at committee and amended or defeated at
that time. It seems to me that Motion No. 3 should be ruled out
of order in keeping with both Beauchesne's and Marleau and
Montpetit. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to explain why Motion No. 3
is before the House today.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise on this point of order. As the mover of Motion
No. 3, I want to make two points.
The first is that it is well within the discretion of the Chair
to determine which motions, having been moved and defeated in
committee, can subsequently be moved in the House. The standing
orders are very clear. The practice in Beauchesne's as well as
our other guides are clear. This is a matter within the
discretion of the Chair. I would argue that the Chair has
exercised its discretion with wisdom in this particular case.
More important, I wonder whether the hon. member has gone on to
look at Motion No. 4. Motion No. 4 is submitted in the name of
his colleague, the member for Elk Island. That motion would
amend certain words in clause 1.1.
I will not read the proposed amendment in Motion No. 4, but that
motion was put in precisely the same form as it is now being put
to the House.
1220
The Chair has ruled in these circumstances that it is in order
to submit it to the House. I suggest that there cannot be one
standard for the member for Burnaby—Douglas and another standard
for the member for Elk Island. Perhaps the member might want to
explain why the double standard.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point
of order. I do not want to engage in debate with the member for
Burnaby—Douglas. Obviously we will get into that during the
course of the bill.
With regard to Motion No. 4 it is not in the same form. It is a
different motion than the one submitted by the member for Elk
Island. I invite the member for Burnaby—Douglas to have a look
at it. That aside, the member for Elk Island may have to defend
his motion before the House as well later on.
Since I have been in this place it has been both our practice
and is quite clearly in our rule books, including both Marleau
and Montpetit and Beauchesne's, that motions which are defeated
in committee are not reintroduced at report stage and then
debated and voted on again in the House. Obviously there is a
redundancy when we do that. It seems to me it is out of order to
have that motion before the House.
Perhaps the Speaker has ruled that there is something
extraordinary or something quite unique about the motion. If
that is the case, I would love to hear it from the Speaker to
understand why. My understanding to date is that the motion
should be ruled out of order, and I would ask the Speaker to do
so.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have some further
citations to perhaps help the Chair. I am referring directly to
Beauchesne's sixth edition, Rules & Forms of the House of
Commons of Canada with Annotations, Comments and Precedents,
and specifically to page 211 thereof, paragraph 714:
A Note to Standing Order 76(5) adopted in 1987, instructs that
the report stage is not meant to be a reconsideration of the
committee stage of a bill. Instead, it is intended to be an
opportunity for Members who were not members of the committee to
propose specific amendments not dealt with by the committee.
In this case the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas was a member
of the committee. His motion was dealt with by the committee. I
would suggest that paragraph is definitive in ruling his motion
out of order.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think the Chair has
heard enough arguments on this point of order. At this point I
would like to take the matter under consideration and the Chair
will come back to the House as soon as possible.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 2,
be amended
“(ii) marriage (being the lawful union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others)”, in the sense that one is”
(b) by replacing “marriage” with “marriage (being the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others)”,
wherever it occurs throughout the Bill after Clause 2, with any
changes that the circumstances require.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 2,
be amended by adding after line 30 on page 1 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 3,
be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 3,
be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 8,
be amended by adding after line 42 on page 3 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 8,
be amended by adding after line 42 on page 3 the following:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 6 on page 10 the following new clause:
“26.1 Section 31 of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 6 on page 10 the following new clause:
“26.1 Section 31 of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
1225
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I believe you are in the process of reading a series of
possibly 100 consecutive amendments, all proposed by the same MP.
In your earlier decision you indicated that a vote on Motion No.
7 would apply to a series of amendments, all in the name of the
hon. member for Calgary Centre. Perhaps you could deem that
entire list to have been moved, seconded and read, and members
could then proceed with debating the motions instead of your
reading the motions to us.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Are we talking about
all the motions in Group No. 1?
Hon. Don Boudria: I would suggest that you ask the House
for consent to do that. It still gives the Chair the opportunity
to rule later, pursuant to the interventions made, that one or
more of these amendments could be out of order after the Chair
has had an opportunity to consider some of the points raised
earlier.
For the present time the entire Group No. 1 could be deemed to
have been moved, seconded and read under the names that appear on
the order paper. In that way we would perhaps save considerable
time in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there agreement of
the House to proceed in such a fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 21 on page 10 the following new clause:
“27.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 21 on page 10 the following new clause:
“27.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 36 on page 10 the following new clause:
“28.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 36 on page 10 the following new clause:
“28.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:
“29.1 Subsection 100(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 15 on page 11 the following new clause:
“29.1 Subsection 100(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 30,
be amended by adding after line 23 on page 11 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 30,
be amended by adding after line 23 on page 11 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 40,
be amended by adding after line 3 on page 14 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 40,
be amended by adding after line 3 on page 14 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 1 to
3 on page 16 with the following:
“42. (1) The definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) of the
Canada Pension Plan is replaced by the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 42,
be amended by adding after line 15 on page 16 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 66,
be amended by adding after line 32 on page 37 the following:
“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of
a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 66, be amended by adding after line 32
on page 37 the following:
“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended
“12. (1) In subsections 10(1) and 11(1), “com-”
“(2) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means
either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is
the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended
by adding after line 22 on page 39 the following:
“(2) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either a
man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 73,
be amended by adding after line 39 on page 39 the following:
“In this paragraph, “marriage” means the lawful union of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 73,
be amended by adding after line 39 on page 39 the following:
“In this paragraph, “spouse” means either of a man or a
woman who has entered into a marriage.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 74,
be amended by adding after line 8 on page 40 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 74,
be amended by adding after line 8 on page 40 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 77,
be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 77,
be amended by adding after line 28 on page 40 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 78,
be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 78,
be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 84,
be amended by adding after line 11 on page 43 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 84,
be amended by adding after line 11 on page 43 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 87,
be amended by adding after line 13 on page 44 the following:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 39 on page 44 the following new clause:
“88.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 39 on page 44 the following new clause:
“88.1 Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 89,
be amended by adding after line 22 on page 45 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 89,
be amended by adding after line 22 on page 45 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 91,
be amended by adding after line 43 on page 45 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 91,
be amended by adding after line 43 on page 45 the following:
That Bill C-23 be amended by
adding after line 34 on page 46 the following new clause:
“96.1 Subsection 45(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 99,
be amended by adding after line 20 on page 48 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 99,
be amended by adding after line 20 on page 48 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
106, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 54 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
106, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 54 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
111, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 56 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
111, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 56 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
116, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 57 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
116, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 57 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
122, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 58 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
122, be amended by adding after line 32 on page 58 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
124, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 59 the following:
“(1.2) In subsection (1), “spouse” means either of a man or
a woman who has entered into a marriage, which is the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by replacing line 4 on
page 60 with the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by adding after line 4
on page 60 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 125, be amended by adding after line 4
on page 60 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
125, be amended by adding after line 4 on page 60 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
127, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 60 the following:
“4.3 For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause
139, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 67 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
139, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 67 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
147, be amended by adding after line 34 on page 68 the following:
“(1.1) Subsection 20(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding
the following after paragraph (1.11):
(1.12) For the purposes of subsection (1.1), “spouse” means
either of a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage, which
is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of
all others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 148, be amended by adding after line
14 on page 69 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
148, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 69 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
153, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 70 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
153, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 70 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
159, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 72 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
159, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 72 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
170, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 76 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
176, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 81 the following:
“(3) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the
following in alphabetical order:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
187, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 88 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
187, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 88 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 192, be amended by adding after line
37 on page 91 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
192, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 91 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 210, be amended by adding after line
31 on page 100 the following:
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 211, be amended by adding after line
24 on page 101 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause
211, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 101 the
following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by replacing line 21
on page 116 with the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by adding after line
29 on page 116 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 243, be amended by replacing line 38
on page 116 with the following:
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by replacing lines 2
to 6 on page 120 with the following:
“254. (2) The definitions “joint and survivor”
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by adding after line
33 on page 120 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 254, be amended by replacing line 34
on page 120 with the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line 7
on page 126 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 266, be amended by adding after line
14 on page 126 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 286, be amended by adding after line
29 on page 131 the following:
“(3.1) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 288, be amended by adding after line
43 on page 132 the following:
“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 288, be amended by adding after line
43 on page 132 the following:
“(4) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of
a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 291, be amended by adding after line
37 on page 133 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 295, be amended by adding after line
32 on page 134 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 295, be amended by adding after line
32 on page 134 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 298, be amended by adding after line
38 on page 135 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 298, be amended by adding after line
38 on page 135 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 303, be amended by adding after line
31 on page 137 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 303, be amended by adding after line
31 on page 137 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line
14 on page 139 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 311, be amended by adding after line
14 on page 139 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 315, be amended by adding after line
12 on page 141 the following:
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “marriage” means the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 315, be amended by adding after line
12 on page 141 the following:
“(3) For the purposes of this Act, “spouse” means either of
a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage.”
That Bill C-23, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line
19 on page 143 the following:
That Bill C-23, in Clause 317, be amended by adding after line
19 on page 143 the following:
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise at this time to speak to Motions Nos. 1 and 3
which are in my name on behalf of my colleagues in the New
Democratic Party and to speak in opposition to the remaining
motions in Group No. 1.
When I rose at second reading on Bill C-23, the bill which is
now before the House at report stage, it was to congratulate the
government on recognition of the committed loving relationships
of gay and lesbian people and to congratulate the government on
recognizing that instead of fighting statute by statute in the
courts it would do the right thing and extend equal benefits and
equal obligations to gay and lesbian people involved in
relationships.
I noted at the time that while the bill extended significant
equality there were still some remaining steps on the road to
full equality, that the provisions of the immigration law and
regulations must be clarified to recognize gay and lesbian
relationships. I pointed out as well at that time that the
federal common law which denies the right for gay and lesbian
people to marry is still clearly in my view discriminatory.
1230
The minister spoke shortly before me at second reading. She
spoke eloquently about the importance of equality and, with equal
passion, she made it clear that Bill C-23 had nothing whatsoever
to do with marriage or the definition of marriage.
That same minister appeared before the justice committee at the
first hearing of the justice committee on February 29 and she was
clear and unequivocal. In response to a question from a member
suggesting that perhaps there might be a definition of marriage
included in the bill, the minister said “There is no need to put
it in here because this does not deal with the institution of
marriage. There is legislation, the Marriage Act, which deals
with the institution of marriage, but this does not and I do not
think it would serve society well to confuse the two in this
legislation”.
What we have seen is a shameful collapse by the Minister of
Justice to the pressure of her own backbenchers, the so-called
family caucus in the Liberal Party, which some have called the
dinosaur wing of the Liberal caucus, working in coalition, in
this unholy alliance, cette coalition incroyable, between the
Reform Party on the one hand and the Liberal Party on the other.
It is no surprise that many of the Liberals who have spoken out
against the bill are the same Liberals who spoke out against
equality in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I see the member for
Scarborough Centre here. He has been very clear. He does not
believe in equality. He voted against it in the human rights act
and he is voting against this bill as well.
What we have seen is a response by the Liberal justice minister,
a quite shameful and cowardly response by the justice minister,
to a campaign of fear, of distortion, of lies by too many people
in the public and those, in some cases, in the House.
I got a press release from the member for Yorkton—Melville. He
said that Bill C-23 should be renamed the death of marriage act.
This is from a Reform Party member. I am sorry, it is the
Canadian Alliance now. They say they have changed, but I ask
you, have they really changed when we hear this? Here is what
the Canadian Alliance member had to say: “In the 1950s buggery
was a criminal offence. Now it is a requirement to receive
benefits from the federal government”.
That statement was made by the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party
member. I suppose it is no surprise when one of the leading
candidates for their leadership, Stockwell Day, talked last week
about homosexuality as a choice. I guess that a person would
pour milk on their breakfast cereal one morning and decide “Hey,
I think I am going to be gay”. Or, “I think I am going to be
straight”. That is a brilliant analysis by Stockwell Day, the
same person who referred to homosexuality as a mental disorder. I
guess we should not be surprised that this kind of amendment
would come from the Reform Party.
What is absolutely shameful is that the Liberal members would
support it, and not only support it but initiate that particular
amendment, and that they would do this without any consultation
whatsoever. The national lobby group ÉGALE, Égalité pour les
gais et les lesbiennes, Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Everywhere, voiced their anger and concern that after they
testified in good faith before the justice committee, relying on
the representation of the minister that marriage was not an issue
addressed by the bill, the repeated statements by the minister
that this was not something we had to deal with, ÉGALE did not in
any way respond to this campaign of fearmongering and homophobia.
ÉGALE felt a sense of betrayal when the minister introduced this
bill, as indeed I and other members felt. They said that in fact
the proposed amendment before the committee fundamentally altered
the tenor, purpose and potentially the constitutionality of the
legislation.
1235
What this amendment effectively does is to send a signal to gay
and lesbian people that our relationships are inferior, that they
are not as committed, not as loving and not as worthy of
recognition in the eyes of the law as all other relationships.
That, in my view, is a shameful concession to the forces in the
Reform Party who have argued that point.
I want to make it very clear that there were some members of the
Liberal Party who spoke out against this in committee. The
member for St. Paul's spoke eloquently. It will be interesting
to see how other Liberal members vote on this amendment, how the
member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the member for Vancouver
Centre and others will vote on this issue of fundamental
equality.
[Translation]
I also wish to thank the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
for his support to the amendment. I know that one quarter of
the Bloc Quebecois members have even voted against the principle
of this bill, which is highly regrettable, but the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has supported the amendment.
[English]
Let us be clear what this is about. This is the first time in a
federal statute that we are defining marriage in a way that would
exclude gay and lesbian people from access to marriage.
The current definition of marriage is one that dates back to an
1866 decision of the British courts, back to a time when marriage
had a very particular meaning. For example, in 1866 men were
allowed to beat their wives as long as they used a stick that was
no wider than their thumbs. That was the definition of marriage
then.
Marriage was for life. We know that many argued that divorce
would somehow be the end of marriage. We have heard since then
other alleged threats to marriage, such as contraception.
Interracial marriage was only struck down in the U.S. in 1967,
and 19 states had laws on the books in 1967 barring interracial
marriage.
I have to ask, what is the threat? Is marriage such a fragile
institution that if we allow the choice, and I emphasize that,
the choice of gay and lesbian people to marry, that somehow it
will collapse like a house of cards? I do not think so.
I want to be very clear that I speak today on behalf of my
colleagues in the New Democratic Party in support of access of
gay and lesbian people to marriage. I believe that this
amendment of the government will be found to be unconstitutional
and in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms. Indeed,
an eloquent dissenting judgment of Judge Greer in the case of
Layland and Beaulne struck down the definition. The government
did not make any meaningful attempt to defend it in committee.
The Canadian public in an Angus Reid poll in May of last year
showed that a majority of the Canadian public support this
recognition. The Netherlands is moving ahead.
I urge all members of the House to rise above intolerance and
homophobia, to reject the campaign of fearmongering, to appeal
particularly to Liberal members to do the right thing, to
recognize the diversity of Canadian families, to recognize that
our relationships as gay and lesbian people are just as loving
and just as committed, and that we should have that choice. To
deny us that choice is not only deeply offensive and demeaning,
but I believe is unconstitutional as well.
For that reason I proposed an amendment to delete the definition
of the government, or at the very least to delete the words after
“marriage”, to ensure that that opportunity would be available
for gay and lesbian people to marry.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House today, in
particular with respect to the amendment which I have proposed,
Motion No. 5.
However, I begin my remarks by noting in passing that the hon.
member who spoke just before me began his remarks by trying to
say that this bill has nothing to do with marriage, and then
spent the next nine minutes of his speech telling the House why
gays and lesbians should be able to marry.
Clearly this bill has something to do with marriage. That of
course is why people were concerned about the institution of
marriage as they had always known it. That is why numerous
witnesses appeared before the justice committee to express their
concerns. That is why thousands of people have contacted their
members of parliament to express their concerns.
1240
What has the government done in response to that? It has
addressed the concerns of the people who have contacted the House
of Commons. It has done so, I would say, a bit late, but better
late than never.
What has the government done? It has not done anything radical.
It has not done anything unusual. It has simply restated what
most people in this country know to be the definition of
marriage. It has restated it in clause 1.1 of the bill, which is
worth referring to. It reads:
For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not
affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
That is exactly what marriage is and that is what I would argue
marriage should remain. I believe I speak for the vast majority
of my constituents when I make that statement.
My amendment is a very specific amendment. It states that
wherever the word “marriage” appears in Bill C-23, immediately
after that word the definition of marriage should be placed in
parenthesis, namely, “the lawful union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others”.
Why have I brought this amendment in view of clause 1.1 moved by
the government in committee? I guess we are talking
technicalities. This is the way I view it. Bill C-23 is an
omnibus bill. The sole purpose of the bill is to amend 68
statutes of the Government of Canada.
Once Bill C-23 becomes law, as I am certain it will, the 68
statutes that it seeks to amend will be amended. In effect,
therefore, the function of Bill C-23 will have been completed.
All of the parts of Bill C-23 deal with other acts. They command
that those other acts be amended. Once Bill C-23 becomes law,
all of the sections which command that other sections of other
acts be changed will be changed.
In effect, Bill C-23 will have served its purpose and will be
legally spent, except for clause 1.1, which will remain all by
itself, in what I term a ghost law; a law with only one section,
having completed its task. That ghost law will remain a law but
will soon be forgotten. It will not be reproduced in the revised
statutes of Canada. It will not be before parliamentarians on a
daily basis. It will not be before adjudicators, administrators,
functionaries, bureaucrats and, most importantly, it will not be
before judges on a daily basis.
However, if we add the definition that is in clause 1.1 as a
parenthetical definition after the word “marriage” wherever it
appears in Bill C-23, then as Bill C-23 amends each of these acts
that definition will be carried into each of those acts, so that
judges, administrators and parliamentarians, when they are
dealing with specific sections of a pension bill, the Income Tax
Act, the Judges Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act, or whichever act it is of the 68 statutes
involved, that definition would be front and centre before these
people who are dealing with these acts on a daily basis.
Otherwise, it would be out of sight, out of mind.
1245
My amendment adds the exact words from clause 1.1 as a
definition after the word marriage in each and every place where
it appears in Bill C-23. It does nothing more.
I noticed the member who spoke before me used his familiar
tactic, in that he attempted to demonize those who disagree with
him. He used his usual pejorative words such as “dinosaurs” and
“unholy alliance”. This is a favourite tactic of those who have no
real argument; it is not to attack the argument but to attack the
person making the argument.
I cannot say it any better than Hartley Steward who wrote a
column in the Sun on Sunday, April 2. I would like to read
his take on this kind of attempt to demonize those who disagree
with the legitimization of same sex marriage:
The shame is threefold.
First, in this fashion, extremists steal from all Canadians the
agenda of political campaigns and make impossible a thoughtful
and useful discussion of a broad range of issues. In their
mindless way they take from us the ability to address the issues,
like health care, which need our attention.
Indeed, they make it impossible for us to enjoy the practice of
democracy.
This is not an accident. It is by design. It is vital for them
to make primary only issues on their agenda and to attach
despicable motives to those who hold honest beliefs on the side
opposite theirs. It is a victory for their side if they can
demonize those who hold different views; if they can characterize
them as bigots, tyrants and dangerous people.
Then they need not debate the issues. Listen to the juvenile
chants and you will realize how futile it would be for them to
engage in debate with people who can actually think in sentences
and employ logic in their arguments.
Homosexuality and how a society can and should deal with it is a
debatable issue. Homosexuality itself, its cause and effect, is
still a debatable issue. It has been since the time of Socrates.
It is not good enough, nor does it serve society well, to
demonize anyone who asks a question or holds a contrary view.
But if you can demonize someone, convince the world he asks the
question because he is an evil person, why the argument is won.
To chant, red-faced and hysterically, “anti-choice” at someone
who is against abortion is again the tactic of those who care
nothing for democracy, and would frustrate it in a moment to gain
their ends.
That is what we see when people do not like to hear the kinds of
comments for example that I am making. I allow that in a
democracy everybody has the right to make the comments that they
wish to make without having to be called names. It is ultimately
up to the people of Canada in the House and through elections to
decide what direction they want their country to take. Enough of
this name calling. Let us just deal with the issues.
For my part, I advised the government that in my view the best
way to have approached the protection of marriage as we have
always known it was to amend the Marriage Act and the
Interpretation Act. Unfortunately that advice was not followed.
Rather we have this unfortunate way of introducing it as an
afterthought in Bill C-23, but as I say, better late than never.
I ask the House to support my amendment which is that the
definition of marriage be carried as a definition wherever
marriage appears in Bill C-23. That definition is the common law
of Canada. It is the position of the Government of Canada. It
is the position of the House of Commons as decided on June 8,
1999. It is the position of Bill C-23. For those reasons, I ask
that my amendment receive favourable support.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, what does Bill C-23 do? Bill C-23 gives every benefit
previously reserved for married couples to any two people,
opposite or same sex, who live together for one year in a
conjugal relationship.
1250
The bill does not define conjugal relationship anywhere, so it
leaves that wide open. I will not focus on that too much today
but it is one of our concerns.
I want to go on to point out that the bill came into being by
the Department of Justice bureaucrats who worked on the bill.
They informed us that they searched all the federal statutes for
the terms “marriage” and/or “spouse” and inserted a new
definition for the term “common law partner” so that two people
of the same sex would be considered the same as married as far as
public policy goes.
I did ask the justice minister in committee if there was any
difference in the treatment of married and same sex couples in
Bill C-23. She did mention one, that married couples still have
to get divorced. I do not know what people in same sex
relationships do. Perhaps they walk out the door when it is
over. It is not clear from the bill.
Bill C-23 also redefined in statute “related persons” in
clause 9. It redefined family in clause 134. It redefined it
from those connected by blood, marriage or adoption to a new
definition which includes two people of the same gender in a same
sex or homosexual lifestyle.
Public pressure against the bill has been enormous. Some
members of all parties have received more e-mails, faxes, letters
and phone calls on this issue than on any other issue this
session. People from coast to coast overwhelmingly do not want
the bill to go ahead. Petitions against the bill are coming into
my office at a rate of almost 1,000 signatures a day.
It is also ironic that 10 short months ago the Liberal
government voted in support of a Canadian Alliance motion to
ensure that parliament “take all necessary steps to preserve the
definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others”. Now the Liberals have brought forward
Bill C-23 as their first priority, which gives every marriage and
family benefit to two people of the same gender in something
called a conjugal relationship.
With Bill C-23 the Liberals have removed any unique public
policy recognition of the institution of marriage and have set
the stage for the courts to endorse homosexual marriage in
Canada. It is no wonder that the people of Canada are reacting.
The Liberals said they would strengthen the definition of
marriage in law and that they would make it their first priority.
They said that but they have done just the opposite.
Because of the high public pressure the justice minister was
under, she fought her bureaucrats and had an amendment included
at the very beginning of the bill, right after the title, that is
meant to reassure Canadians that the bill will not affect the
meaning of the word “marriage”. Do not be deceived. The
justice minister's amendment will not appear in a single one of
the 68 statutes that Bill C-23 is changing. It will not appear
in Canadian law.
After reviewing the wording of the justice minister's amendment
in clause 1.1 of Bill C-23 and the location of it in the bill, a
legal analysis was done by David M. Brown, an experienced charter
lawyer from one of the largest legal firms in Canada. In the
lengthy analysis, the leading Canadian text on statutory
interpretation, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes,
was extensively referred to. Some previous case law was also
considered.
The conclusion of this professional, legal analysis from a
prestigious and respected law firm in Toronto was as follows:
[The justice minister's amendment] is not an enacting provision
of the bill; it does not operate to amend any of the particular
acts referred to in the bill by including a definition of the
word “marriage”. Passage of a version of Bill C-23 which
includes [the minister's amendment] will not result, as a matter
of law, in any of the specific bills containing a definition of
“marriage”.
Parliament took a position 10 months ago in support of a motion
by the Canadian Alliance to take all necessary steps to secure
the definition of marriage in law. That is why we have moved
amendments to each of the 68 statutes to include a definition of
marriage and spouse in each of the statutes. By including an
enacting definition in the laws of Canada it would, in the words
of expert legal opinion, make a difference that would mean that
if the bill was amended to enact a definition of marriage for
each of the particular acts referred to in the bill, then
parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intentions
to the courts and the public at large.
1255
That is what parliament resoundingly said it would do in June
1999. That is what the public wants us to do. For goodness'
sake, why is the Liberal government not doing it?
Bill C-23 repeatedly places in statute the definition of common
law partner to include those involved in a homosexual lifestyle.
If these definitions can be repeated throughout the statutes, is
it not reasonable to have a marriage definition also defined in
the statutes? That is exactly what our amendments call for.
If the purpose of the justice minister's amendment is to give
“greater certainty” that marriage is a lawful union of one man
and one woman to the exclusion of all others, why leave it
outside the affected statutes and laws? Why not make it certain
and support the Canadian Alliance amendments that put the
definition of marriage in the statutes of Canada?
The Liberals' approach of leaving marriage outside of the same
sex benefits bill is misleading. It does not really achieve
anything. It is misleading because it gives the impression that
the one man and one woman definition of marriage has been secured
when in fact it has not been, not by parliament.
I will quote again from this leading legal expert:
If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
“marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others”, then in my opinion, [the
minister's amendment] does not achieve that objective. As
previously stated, [the minister's amendment] is not an enacting
section; it will not bring into force any legally binding
definition of “marriage”.
By contrast, if the bill was amended to enact a definition of
marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the bill,
then parliament would be giving a clear indication of its
intentions to whom? To the courts and to the public at large.
The public have been making us very aware that they are concerned
about this issue.
Marriage means something to Canadians and that is why we have
brought this forward. Canadians know that marriage is good for
kids. It works for families. Government policy should serve to
strengthen it instead of undermining it like Bill C-23 does. To
my hon. colleagues in the House who supported a motion that they
voted for in June 1999 to secure and strengthen the definition of
marriage, do not vote against marriage now. Support the Canadian
Alliance amendments that state clearly in law what marriage is
and in fact should remain.
In committee the justice minister told us that initially this
bill had nothing to do with marriage, but it is clear from her
amendment that it does affect marriage. It gives every single
benefit that is currently available for married couples and
families to people of the same gender in what is called a
conjugal relationship. That is the second part of our concern
about the bill. Nowhere in the bill does the government define
who qualifies. It simply says a conjugal relationship.
People are wondering if this bill goes ahead whether or not they
are able to participate in what the bill offers. It is
irresponsible for the House to pass legislation that is unclear
and defers to the courts to make assessments as to who and who
does not qualify.
We have asked repeatedly is private physical intimacy between
two adults contingent upon qualifying for these benefits? A
conjugal relationship implies that. The term implies that there
must be some sort of marriage-like sexual activity going on
between two people. That is what the dictionary says. We have
asked whether that is part of what Bill C-23 requires. We cannot
get an answer. This is unclear. It is the second problem we have
with the bill.
I appeal to members opposite to support the amendments that make
it clear in law for all Canadians that marriage will remain the
union of one man and one woman regardless of what may come down
from the courts and respect the will of the Canadian people.
1300
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate at
report stage. I want to point out that this is a bill that I am
very happy to support. As the member for Québec knows, my
conviction is all the greater for having introduced private
member's bills proposing the same debate myself on four
occasions since 1994, as is our prerogative.
I believe that report stage should make possible a number of
clarifications.
The first thing that needs to be clarified is that this bill has
nothing to do with marriage, contrary to what members of the
Canadian Alliance would have us think. Even the minister, in
her evidence before the parliamentary committee when we began
consideration of Bill C-23, started out by saying that the bill
has nothing to do with marriage.
I will have an opportunity to come back to this during my
speech, particularly at third reading, but this is a bill the
purpose of which is to do something about the inequities and
discrimination faced by members of the gay community, gays and
lesbians, in recent years.
An examination of the bill reveals that it contains hundreds of
clauses and concerns 68 statutes.
That is a lot. In the history of parliament, few bills have had
the effect of amending 68 laws applying to various departments
at one go.
What does this bill propose? First, it is in line with
decisions made by the courts. I think our colleagues in the
Canadian Alliance have a bit of a hard time understanding that.
We have a parliamentary system that distinguishes between the
executive, judicial and legislative powers. Nevertheless, all
are subject to the Canadian charter of human rights. Despite
the battle waged at the time by the young member for
Burnaby—Douglas to have sexual orientation included in section
15 as a prohibited ground for discrimination, it was not.
The lawmakers did not listen to the member for Burnaby—Douglas,
it will be recalled. That is why a number of people had no
choice but to turn to the courts.
Along the way, the supreme court handed down decisions providing
that we should consider that section 15 provided specific
reference to sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for
discrimination, but it was not enough to afford full recognition
to gays and lesbians.
A coalition was formed at the initiative of the group known as
EGALE. It made representations and took the matter of the
discriminatory nature of the failure to recognize same sex
partners to the various courts of justice. The bill before us,
presented by the Minister of Justice, will rectify the
situation.
It is hard to imagine the impact of this bill on all aspects of
life. It affects employment insurance. The law provides that
when one partner in a heterosexual relationship moves the other
partner may follow without penalty and without disqualification
from receiving employment insurance benefits.
1305
The bill deals, of course, with income tax. It continues the
harmonization process undertaken last year, following the
Rosenberg case. Members will remember that the court of appeal
forced the Minister of Finance to amend the Income Tax Act,
because it was discriminatory.
This bill also amends a very important tool, namely the Criminal
Code. The Criminal Code defines a number of guarantees that must
exist in a common law partnership or in a marriage concerning
the provision of essential goods.
Again, Bill C-23 amends 68 different statutes, it concerns 20
departments and it confirms a recognition that parliament should
have granted many years ago. Ten years went by between the time
the first piece of legislation recognizing same sex spouses was
passed and the bill now before us.
There is a problem in how Canadian Alliance members approach
this debate. That problem is primarily due to their sterile
stubbornness, their narrow-mindedness in that, for the Canadian
Alliance, the homosexual reality undermines the family reality.
There can never be too many of us to explain to Canadian
Alliance members that the homosexual reality does not in any way
undermine the family reality, since we do not choose to become
homosexuals.
One simply discovers that one is a homosexual and the choice
then becomes to either accept it or not. But once a person has
discovered and accepted the fact that he or she is a homosexual,
there is no reason to say that homosexuals are not part of
families, that they cannot build families, or that they cannot
enjoy the full protection provided by the legislation as a
whole.
Incidentally, this bill has nothing at all to do with marriage.
Why? First, because the definition of marriage is not enshrined
in an act. The definition of marriage is to be found in the
common law, in the rulings made by the courts. What exists
regarding marriage are provisions on accepted or prohibited
degrees, provisions which specify that this person cannot marry
that person, because of the blood relationship that exists
between them.
Let us be clear, the bill we have before us not only has nothing
to do with marriage, it also has nothing to do with adoption.
Why is that? Because adoption does not come under federal
jurisdiction, it is provincial. To give the example of my
province of birth, the Civil Code sets out the procedures for
adoption.
Moreover, in civil law there is no obstacle to adoptions by
homosexuals. The only obstacle is that if someone is in a
couple relationship, and his or her partner adopts a child, the
partner living with the adopting parent will not have parental
status, in the eyes of the law, because adoption is on an
individual basis.
Let us look briefly at the reality of a conjugal relationship.
The bill we have before us today is an omnibus bill.
It arises out of the supreme court judgment in M. vs. H, which
dates back to May 20, 1999, as hon. members will recall.
As it has been indicated to me that I do not have much time
left, I will conclude by saying three things to my colleagues.
I trust that, when the bill is voted on at third reading, all
hon. members will rise and this bill will be passed as close to
unanimously as possible. This is a bill of reparation, a bill
that consecrates a fundamental value of our system, namely the
equality of all individuals.
1310
It is impossible to make reference in the wording of legislation
to individual equality, on the one hand, while continuing, on
the other, to call for consistent discrimination by not
recognizing same sex partners.
I have strong hopes that parliamentarians will understand that
this bill has nothing to do with marriage, but with equality of
treatment, and that many of us will support the government in
this excellent initiative.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-23 extends to common law, same sex relationships, the same
benefits and obligations already granted to common law, opposite
sex relationships under federal law.
The bill also extends to common law partners some of the
remaining obligations and a few remaining benefits of more
limited applications currently limited to married couples.
The debate so far this afternoon has dealt with the issue of
marriage. We keep saying that Bill C-23 is not about marriage.
Notwithstanding, I will address some of the concerns expressed.
It is not necessary to add a definition of marriage to each
individual statute in Bill C-23. The government has already
amended the bill to add an interpretive clause that accomplishes
the same result. The legal definition of marriage in Canada is
already clear in law. It has been successfully defended and
upheld by the courts.
On March 22 the Government of Canada tabled an amendment to Bill
C-23. The amendment confirms the Government of Canada's
commitment to the institution of marriage by reaffirming that
marriage is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others. That was stated in the motion passed by
the House of Commons last year. This clarification fully
preserves the integrity of the bill while ensuring that it
addresses the concerns of Canadians.
As we have stated before, nothing in this bill affects the
definition of marriage. This bill is not about marriage. This
amendment reflects this fact. This amendment will not change the
law or the legal status of marriage. However, Canadians have
made it clear that they want some assurance that there will be no
change to the institution of marriage, and that is what we are
doing through this amendment.
As we have said time and time again, Bill C-23 is about
fairness. It will extend equal treatment for benefits and
obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as common law,
opposite sex couples.
The importance of marriage is not something derived from the law
but from society itself, the men and women who make that
commitment. It is clearly evident in that some 20 years after a
majority of the benefits applied to marriages were extended to
common law, opposite sex relationships, people are still getting
married and do so in significant numbers.
It is also wrong to suggest that marriage will not continue to
have a special status in law after this bill. For example,
unlike common law couples, married people have a marriage
certificate to prove their relationship and they are given extra
protection by being considered to be in that relationship until
the day it is dissolved by divorce.
To say that there is nothing left for marriage except for a
divorce is clearly wrong. Several statutes and provisions retain
distinctions and treatment that are directly connected to the
legal difference between marriage, a de jure relationship, common
law relationships and de facto relationships. These distinctions
will be maintained in federal law.
The definition of marriage, as we will keep repeating, as
contained in federal common law will not be modified. A married
relationship has effect for benefits and obligations under
federal law as of the first day that the marriage is registered.
Common law relationships are established as a question of fact;
that is that a reasonable period of cohabitation is required
before the relationship has effect for the purposes of benefits
and obligations. At the federal level this period of
cohabitation is one year.
There is also a difference with regard to the legal treatment of
separations. Because marriage is a legal relationship, where
married spouses are separated their relationship still exists in
law until the marriage is dissolved in divorce. This provided
additional protection under the federal law for purposes of
benefits and obligations.
Common law relationships, however, as a fact based relationship,
end on separation. For example, several Treasury Board statutes
related to survivors' benefits, such as the diplomatic service,
the special Superannuation Act and the Lieutenant Governor's
Superannuation Act, provide for the apportionment of the survivor
benefits in those few cases where there may be two survivors: a
legally married separated spouse and subsequent common law
partner. These provisions do not apply to separated former
common law partners.
The Divorce Act also contains a series of protections for
married couples who separate and divorce. Similar protections
for common law couples within the provincial jurisdictions are
generally less favourable.
1315
As one example, the federal Divorce Act provides for the
division of marital property which is not available in any
provincial legislation for common law couples who must instead
apply to the courts for a judgment in equity of unjust
enrichment. Similarly, provisions allowing for spousal and child
support generally afford greater protection to married couples on
relationship breakdown.
The government has a duty to guarantee the fundamental rights
and freedoms of all Canadians. Courts have clearly found that
same sex relationships of some permanency have many of the same
issues of support, dependency and obligation as heterosexual
couples and have indicated that it is necessary for the
government to act under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Bill C-23 does this.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I want to focus my remarks, in opposition to Bill
C-23, on three main areas. I will begin by stating that I do not
support the amendments proposed by the member for
Burnaby—Douglas, but I do support the amendments proposed by my
colleague from Calgary Centre who attempts to strengthen a very
severely flawed bill.
I will begin by making a broad overview of the philosophical
underpinnings of the bill to explain the divide on this topic.
The second area I want to focus on is what I call the language
game being used by the justice minister and by some who support
Bill C-23. I will conclude by mentioning some of the
implications for proceeding along this path.
Why is the whole issue of same sex benefits such a hot topic? Is
it simply because sex sells, as all good marketers know? I
suggest that there is another more important reason why this
topic strikes such an emotional chord. It is because this is an
issue that forces people to confront their own philosophical core
beliefs. The guiding philosophy of our day and our society, I
would propose, is something called personal subjective
relativism.
Some might wonder what I mean by this term. Let me explain it
in terms that are familiar to all, which is the philosophy that
“what is right for you is right for you, what is right for me is
right for me”. I would define that as relativism. That seems
to be the guiding philosophy of our day.
Let us take a look at this philosophical stance. At its core,
the philosophy holds that man is the measure of all things and
that there are no transcendent absolute truths. Truth is
relative. One can pick out his or her truths, much like picking
out items from a buffet or choosing a particular flavour of ice
cream from his or her favourite ice cream parlour. On the face of
it, this seems a reasonable way to proceed to those who espouse
this philosophical stance. Many espouse to this stance without
understanding that they themselves hold to this belief. They
tacitly hold the belief, that is, they have it without really
knowing on the face of it, that this is what they believe.
Many people would say “Yes, this is how I confront issues when
confronted with issues”. That is all fine and good. The
difficulty arises when people hold to such a view that their
buffet plate of beliefs or their favourite ice cream cone of core
issues is the one that everyone else should also choose. It is
this difficulty which leads those who are relativists to have
these kinds of conversations with others, those who may even be
absolutists. They might say things such as “There are no such
things as absolutes. Truth is relative”. Some might say, in
response to them, “Really?” The relativists would respond
“Yes, indeed and those who claim that there are absolutes are
simply attempting to impose their morality on me”. “Oh,
really”, would say the absolutist. “Yes there are no
absolutes,” claims the relativist. In response, “So, is that
an absolute that there are no absolutes?”
The house of cards argument falls in on itself. A person who
espouses that there is no such thing as an absolute and there are
no truths falls on their own petard, philosophically speaking,
with stating this is the case. How can they claim that something
is right or better than another thing when there is no such thing
within their own definition of what is right and what is wrong?
That is a position that the government is squarely placed in, in
proceeding on the pathway with this bill, Bill C-23.
1320
Those who say there are no truths proceed quite comfortably to
impose their own moral view or philosophical view on others, even
when shown that they are holding to a self-defeating perspective.
If one is a true relativist, why would he or she care if someone
holds to an absolutist point of view? Should not anyone be free
to choose their own perspective?
Some have tried to make Bill C-23 a religious issue. Proponents
of Bill C-23 can use this tactic to paint opponents of Bill C-23
as religious extremists. They can marginalize it or minimize the
opposition by saying that this is just a certain segment of
society who are backward in their thinking and that we do not
have to listen to them.
I would say that it is this philosophical divide that crosses
religious boundaries. There are those, who would call themselves
religious, who support Bill C-23, and those, who are not
religious at all, who oppose Bill C-23. It is for this very
reason that there is a philosophical difference in approach to
the notion of same sex benefits before us, and on other issues as
well.
For example, I have received hundreds of letters and phone calls
opposing Bill C-23 from a wide cross section of constituents. I
have received less than 10 letters and phone calls supporting
Bill C-23. However, I do want to note one comment made by an
ordained Reverend, Rev. Ken Baker from All Saints Anglican Church
in Mission. He says “I wish you to note that I am in favour of
Bill C-23 and I wish you to express my viewpoint in the House”.
I make the argument that there are religious people who support
Bill C-23. I would not include myself in that category. This is
a man who wanted that on the record and it is now on the record.
Bill C-23 presents an issue before us that is not a religious
divide. It is a philosophical divide between a relativistic
perspective and an absolutist perspective. An absolutist is a
person who believes that there are truths that can be known and
on these truths the foundations of right and wrong within a
society are built.
To summarize, the Liberals are saying to Canadians that there
are no absolutes, that this bill is the right way to proceed.
They then go on to argue as if there are absolutes and that this
is the very reason why people should accept Bill C-23.
The minister and members have used terms such as this bill is
the right thing to do, it is about equality and fairness, when it
is really about something else. It is about those Liberal
members on the other side imposing their moral perspective on
Canadians.
This brings me to the second part of my discussion today, which
is a tactic being used by the Liberals and those who would
support Bill C-23. It is something I call the language game. The
language game can be a very effective tool, especially when the
groundwork has already been laid to erode the notion of truths or
absolutes.
Let us talk about this language game being employed by the
government. It is a well crafted technique and strategy that
Liberals and those who support Bill C-23 use to try to
intimidate, punish and scorn those who disagree with their claims
on a philosophical perspective.
Those who claim to be promoters of tolerance will even resort to
bringing personal lawsuits against those who speak out against
them. These can cause a great deal of personal hardship and even
economic ruin. I know an individual within my own riding who is
faced with this because he has been on the public record as being
opposed to this particular issue.
We have seen the creation of new words in the language game,
again played by the justice minister to try to shut down those
who disagree with the bill. We are well acquainted with the word
homophobia, a word where people who believe that there is such a
thing will say that it is a fear of homosexuals; a label used to
brand those who object to the state's sanctioning of
homosexuality.
I implore the government to note that the weakest form of any
argument is name calling. When one's arguments do not withstand
the test of its own merits, it is a sign of weakness within that
argument. We have seen this tactic employed by the government
when proceeding with this bill.
Redefining terms is another plank used in the language game.
Because language is such a powerful tool, we have seen the
government use this tool in branding others for various different
reasons to try to shut down and stifle debate. On this
particular issue, this is very clear.
If the meaning of a word or a phrase can be shifted to mean
something else, then wide support can be granted for an idea. Who
would be against equality? Who would possibly want to be
perceived as anything but tolerant?
Who could disagree with either of these statements?
1325
Let us look at the term tolerance. What does the word actually
mean in light of public policy? Tolerance on this topic of same
sex benefits would seem to indicate that the state should not be
allowed to intrude on private, consensual sexual relationships
between adults as long as all involved consent and no one gets
hurt.
What does the government call tolerance? What does the justice
minister call tolerance? What does she mean by the words
tolerance and equality? The minister believes that no personal
sexual arrangement is better than any other, which can be defined
as sexual egalitarianism, and that anyone should be allowed to
participate in whichever arrangements they choose or are
predisposed to. That is the first part of tolerance.
In conclusion, the minister goes well beyond this definition and
redefines tolerance to mean social acceptance. She wants to
legislate the benefits reserved for married couples or extended
to others, that there is no difference in law between those who
are married, a common law heterosexual or same sex relationship.
I would implore my colleagues to look at the philosophical
underpinnings of this debate and see that it really is a divide
on philosophical grounds. Those who oppose it, oppose it on
such. This marriage amendment that is being proposed by the
justice minister is nothing more than a shell game, which my
colleagues will expound on in the House today to let Canadians
know that this bill is simply wrong.
I implore Canadians not to be fooled by this trick of putting
forward an amendment as some saviour to marriage, because it
certainly is not. It goes down the wrong road and Canadians
should be aware of that.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, we have before us today
Bill C-23. Sociologists and others who are expert in societal
ethics, such as the Canadian religious and academic community and
those who have achieved national prominence through their defence
of the institution of the family, are all concerned about the
basic societal significance of this bill. The gay and lesbian
political groups are happy. However, it has become clear to me
from the constituents who have contacted me that this bill does
not have much legitimacy in my community.
The government members claim that their hands are tied by the
courts and that they are just doing the housekeeping in law that
is necessary to accommodate what the supreme court has already
decided. Nevertheless, the point is that it must be parliament
that makes Canadian law and the courts should interpret, not the
other way around. The court was wrong to read that in at section
15(2) of the charter.
The bill is summarized as follows on the second page of the
bill:
A number of federal Acts provide for benefits or obligations that
depend on a person's relationship to another individual,
including their husband or wife and other family members. Most
of those Acts currently provide that the benefits or obligations
in relation to a husband or wife also apply in relation to
unmarried opposite-sex couples who have been cohabiting in a
conjugal relationship for at least one year. Some of those Acts
provide for benefits or obligations in relation to certain family
members of a person's husband, wife or opposite-sex common-law
partner.
This enactment extends benefits and obligations to all couples
who have been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for at least
one year, in order to reflect values of tolerance, respect and
equality, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
There was a last minute insertion in the bill at the beginning
that will not appear in the text of the 68 statutes that the bill
amends. In that section it says:
l.l For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not
affect the meaning of the word “marriage”, that is, the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The bill then goes on to insert the new definition of common law
into 68 statutes, which reads as follows:
We must then understand what conjugal means, and that will be
for the courts to interpret in the future. My understanding can
be deduced from several sources, such as Black's Law
Dictionary, which says:
There is also the definition in Black's dictionary of the word
“consortium”. It says:
Conjugal fellowship of husband and wife, and the right of each to
the company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation. Damages for loss of consortium
are commonly sought in wrongful death actions, or when a spouse
has been seriously injured through negligence of another, or by a
spouse against third person alleging that he or she has caused
breaking-up of marriage.
1330
What we have are financial benefits and federal social programs
based on what people will claim about their undocumented, private
sexual behavioural associations, rather than on family
dependency, economics and the legal and perhaps even religious
contract of marriage.
I refer to another reference book that is on the clerk's table
before me here in the Chamber. It is called the Bible,
translated into English and published in 1611 at the request of
King James. It is foundational to all our law, and I note in
Corinthians I 10:23, in relation to what is acceptable to partake
of, it outlines a principle which may apply to the bill. It
reads: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not
expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify
not”. To put it another way, the new international version says
“Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial:
everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive”.
Moreover, I paraphrase by saying that courses in life might be
possible but are not recommended.
Despite denials during the last parliament and during the last
election, the Liberals have indeed steadily moved to enhance the
complete social condonation of the gay-lesbian lifestyle. Instead
of clearly outlining that particular political agenda in their
platform policy and seeking a political mandate for such aims,
they have been less than honest with Canadians and have brought
it to the country by stealth, which they have often denied they
were doing. It seems now they no longer make any pretence about
their longstanding political agenda, despite the past denials.
Consequently, there was no basic political consent in this
country to do this.
The bill is very prescriptive in nature, telling average
Canadians what is good for them, and it strikes at the heart of
what family has meant to Canadians.
Canadians need to wake up and read the label on the bottle of
what is being prescribed as medicine for the country. The elites
make astounding prescriptions, such as the Law Commission of
Canada when it pronounces, revealing its low regard for average
Canadians' opinions and the democratic will to be expressed in
the House of Commons. They said at the justice committee:
However much we are committed...to undertaking the broader
inquiry, we also believe that legislation like Bill C-23 merits
enactment today. However much we believe in the need for
Parliament ultimately to strive for its legislative “best”, we
also believe that there are times (and this is one of them) when
it should proceed to enact what is, constitutionally, a
legislative “good”.
This new, Liberal government created and staffed law commission
arrogantly pronounced on our democracy and the worth of the House
with that statement, and it is appalling. It is like the
condescension to Canadians evidenced by the Nisga'a bill, or what
the government did to Canadian human rights at the University of
British Columbia when our nation hosted some oppressive foreign
dictators. It is more of “we know best what is good for you,
and by the way, do not think for yourself to disagree”.
We need to build community consensus on these things. Parties
need to declare during elections these kinds of matters and seek
mandates. If they will not, certainly it is only the Canadian
Alliance that would change the system and put the power into the
hands of citizens to give them the ability to seek community
support and drive the public agenda through a local initiatives
law process.
Basic issues can be settled in line with what Canadians really
want, not by fighting politicians or receiving Liberal style
condescending coercion. Rather, the social concepts must submit
to the Canadian marketplace of ideas where neighbour can convince
neighbour in discussion, knowing in advance that their discussion
has real power, and where the disciplines and moderating limits
of democracy and the ballot box can more fully work.
No one should be discriminated against in basic human rights.
However, we discriminate all the time when we define limits of
access to programs and benefits, such as the age discrimination
against me to receive the old age pension. I am too young.
There has been a deliberate confusion between rights and
benefits. People desire to eliminate real discrimination when
they find it, but they can be socially conservative and
traditionalist in their outlook and yet not be socially
intolerant or discriminatory.
Traditional marriage is seen as very special, if not sacred, by
all major religions of the world, and the bill is seen as
demeaning those ideals. Yet Canadians want to be fair,
non-discriminatory and certainly not mean-spirited.
I will be voting against the bill because I do not believe it is
supported by most of my community, and they cannot be labelled as
prejudiced when they make that decision.
1335
On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion to take all necessary
steps to preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one
man and woman to exclusion of all others. It is time for the
government to act on this directive and clearly and effectively
define marriage in legislation. It is unfortunate that the
Liberals chose to disregard the recognition of the institution of
marriage in legislation.
Common law status will now have wide interpretation. Formerly
in law the standard has been at least two or three years of
living as if married. The change to one year will have
unforeseen social effects. One disadvantage of the definition of
common law partner is that its very flexibility gives rise to
uncertainties in its application, uncertainties that may require
intrusive inquiries into the intimate details of people's lives
for their resolution.
This bill may soon become known as the end of marriage act. An
interpretation clause of marriage in an omnibus bill will likely
have little future legal weight. Therefore, this amendment does
not truly preserve the traditional concept of marriage in
legislation. If the government were serious, it would attach the
definition to all statutes whenever it adds the new definition of
common law.
However, I doubt they are sincere, for this amendment is a
political move by the Liberals to try to deflect legitimate
concerns about marriage being made meaningless in public policy.
The public is presently not accepting outright gay-lesbian
marriage, but we are getting there by stealth. Maybe the public
will want it someday, but whatever happens, it must be
democratically legitimate, not proscribed.
The bill has many internal flaws and it does not have the
support of my community. Consequently, Canadians will have to
defeat this government so that we can fix this bill, like so many
other measures the Liberals have propounded, for they do not
reflect basic Canadian character and mainstream values.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, there
are bills we debate that do not cause us too much distress.
There are others, very important ones, that affect us in the way
we were raised, in our beliefs. Bill C-23 hits us hard in the
gut. However, we want to behave as MPs, it pushes us to think
more.
On the subject of Bill C-23, the Progressive Conservative party
has decided the vote will be a free one. There has always been
a free vote in caucus, but in the House, where the members
belong to a political party, there must be solidarity.
In this case, as in others in which moral fibre is very
important, the members will have the option of voting according
to their own conscience or that of their electors.
I listened to the Reform members' presentations. It is not
clear whether their consciences will win out or whether they
will follow the wishes of their constituents. As I can see,
their consciences are likely to have the upper hand.
This bill is not easy. When we talk about the rights of
homosexuals in the country, in fiscal terms, with some sixty
laws involved, it is not an easy matter. It is tempting to
hide, saying “It is true, there are homosexuals, there are gays
and lesbians, but why are we talking about it?” People ask us
“Why talk about gays and lesbians?” Who does not know people
who are gay or lesbian? We cannot say they do not exist. They
are there.
Someone said “They are fine people, but—”. That is a bit
backward. “They are fine people, but we should not go too far.
There is the marriage issue”.
On the subject of marriage, with the rule of interpretation, the
government took a step in the right direction. It is a rule of
interpretation that has force of law, much more so than some
members might imagine. Why do I say that? Because I recall
that the conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord were rules
of interpretation.
1340
The concept of distinct society was included in a preamble. It
was a rule of interpretation. I remember that, in certain parts
of the country, people were afraid of that rule and its weight
from a legal standpoint. Personally, I am very, very pleased
with that rule.
Naturally, it is not easy to discuss giving gays and lesbians
who are in a common-law partnership the same tax benefits as a
man and a woman in a similar partnership. Personally, I will
support the bill. Did I read all the clauses and assess all the
implications? The answer is no.
People in my riding have asked me what this bill was all about.
I told them “It is an omnibus bill”.
In order to understand fully the impact of Bill C-23, one must
know all the acts that are mentioned in it. This makes Bill C-23
an absolutely incredible document.
I am not an expert on this bill like the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, but there are principles involved
here. I had discussions with people in my riding. Some support
this bill, and others oppose it. Some people ask many more
questions than others. An older lady told me “I remember 25, 30
or 35 years ago, when my daughter decided to move in with her
boyfriend, it was a tragedy. We would tell them “What are you
doing? You are living in sin. Such a relationship is illegal, as
evidenced by the fact that the Church opposes it, while the law
does not recognize it”.
Finally, things have evolved. I think that the discussion
nowadays is much like the discussions that used to take place in
Canada and Quebec and all the provinces about
cohabitation—although not quite the same, because any analogy is
imperfect. Do we provide the same benefits? People were afraid
that the sacrament of marriage might disappear if they
recognized the existing reality.
I was asked how I saw it? When I was a teenager, people would
ask me what I wanted. Back then, I said that I wanted to get
married and have children. That was what I wanted. I did not
get married and I have a little boy of four. I do not feel
excluded from society in any way. I am a practising Catholic
and I do not feel excluded.
I have also spoken with a few people in the Church and some take
a harder line.
Others make a distinction between their concerns and those of
others, between secular society—this does not mean that they are
not interested, that they are not a part of that society—and
religious society. What concerns them is faith, religion. For
them, marriage continues to be the union of a man and a woman.
That does not change. However, they naturally take a stand on
any bill that secular society comes up with. Within the Church
itself, there are divisions, different stands. It is the same
way within the Progressive Conservative Party.
Who am I to say that, as you cannot have children in the normal
way, you cannot be recognized as a couple for tax purposes, for
the purpose of benefits? Who am I? My faith may tell me that a
family, a marriage, takes a certain form. That is all very
well, but who am I to judge?
1345
This is a reality. Some will say that being gay or lesbian is
not normal. Some people in this House still believe it is a
disease, or that it is hereditary, or if not hereditary is a
matter of behaviour and the result of some past problem. They
contend that the gays and lesbians in this country are the
result of family breakdown.
I do not have the answer. I do know that people must adjust to
reality, a reality that is, in some ways, accepted by those who
live in this country. Unlike the situation with other issues of
equal importance and difficulty, I have not seen people
picketing the homes of gays or lesbians.
Has it been seen? I have seen not such thing. Have hon.
members seen signs proclaiming “We are anti-gay. We are against
lesbians”? I have not. We do, of course, have our protester
out front, but that is what democracy is all about.
There is some openness in this country. Bill C-23 is putting
into law what the supreme court has called upon us to do. We
know that members of the Reform Party are not keen on the
supreme court. They do not like courts of law, and yet,
unfortunately, they are going to end up in one once again,
because of their name, but that is another story.
Our thinking must evolve with the times, our open-mindedness in
particular. The government can be heavily criticized for one
thing about Bill C-23 and I believe that all opposition parties
agree on this point. They could have taken more time to consult
the—
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order to remind my colleague that in his speech he referred to us
as the Reform Party. I remind him that we gave the House the
documents which say we are members of the Canadian Alliance.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think we have all
agreed to call the former Reform Party by its new name but please
give us a little leeway. It is not very easy to make the change
overnight in our debates and conversation but I am sure that we
will try to do our best.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Madam Speaker, I would lie to point out to my
Reform colleague who is a member of the Canadian Alliance that,
even if we are not allowed to call each other names here in the
House, I may call him whatever he wants, provided that he
acknowledges that I am a member of the Progressive Conservatives
of Canada.
Discussion on Bill C-23 must continue in an atmosphere of
open-mindedness, not narrow-mindedness. That is why the
Progressive Conservative Party will have a free vote on this
issue.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I point out to the member who just
spoke how it does make a difference. That will be the whole
point of my speech. I ask him too to look at reality.
Last summer I spent a lot of time working on a family farming
project. It was very labour intensive and provided jobs for a
lot of young people in our area. I worked side by side with many
young people between the ages of 16 and 20. Many of them were
from a youth rehabilitation centre that worked with young people
who had run afoul of the law.
After working side by side with me and doing some very difficult
work, they began to talk with me one on one. They of course did
not know that I am a member of parliament, nor did they care and
it would not have made any difference to them. As they began
telling me about themselves, their backgrounds and especially
their home environments, I was struck by the fact that they all
had one thing in common: every single one of them did not have a
father in the home.
My experience provides the passion for what I have to say today
in my whole argument. We have given certain groups within our
society special privileges without balancing them with
responsibilities. Who suffers? It is the children. That is my
theme today.
If we go ahead with Bill C-23 as it stands today without
amendments, it is the children who will be hurt and it is the
children who are not even born yet who will be hurt.
1350
Let me explain. Hopefully Liberal members are listening and not
just giving catcalls as they are doing now. This is not just an
issue of personal conscience. Every law has consequences
otherwise we would not even be talking about it or dealing with
it in parliament. What are the consequences of Bill C-23 going to
be?
By going back to the example I began my speech with, let me
underscore the fact that if we do not have healthy, strong homes
and close families where both parents play a strong role, we will
end up with children who begin life with two strikes against
them. It is the children who are hurt. Those are the
consequences.
Solid homes and families build a strong nation. A solid home
and family is built on a firm foundation. That firm foundation
is a lifelong marriage commitment. It is not a sexual
relationship. That is the big flaw with Bill C-23.
It is a huge mistake for the government to base benefits on a
conjugal relationship. That is not the same as a marriage
relationship. The state needs to encourage lifelong commitments
to form the basis of a strong, stable family where children can
grow, develop and learn the values from their parents that will
give our society its palatability.
We have done some in-depth research on this. Legal research in
the last week has indicated that putting a definition of marriage
in the preamble of Bill C-23 is not good enough. The research
shows clearly that the amendment is very weak and will do nothing
to the 68 pieces of legislation that are being amended.
I want to emphasize that because that is a key argument in
everything we are saying today. Why? Because Bill C-23 is an
omnibus bill. It amends 68 other pieces of legislation. At the
very least every other one of those pieces of legislation must
have the preamble of Bill C-23 included in it and that is not
going to happen as it is presently structured. Lawyers tell us
that this bill is set up in a way that it will not happen. That
is the great flaw with this legislation.
We must preserve the marriage commitment for the sake of our
children. Is it any wonder that the world's greatest teacher
said that it would be better for a millstone to be put around a
person who hurt one of these little ones and then for that person
to be dropped into the sea. Let us never forget that.
Benefits should never be based on a sexual relationship either.
Benefits, if the government so chooses, could be based on a
relationship of dependency. If I have time I am going to propose
that positive alternative to what the Liberals have done.
This bill should not undermine the strength of the family home.
If the state is to provide any incentives, it must consider the
most vulnerable in our society, our children. Those incentives
should promote stable family relationships where children are
nurtured and developed. The state needs to promote the
commitment, not the sexual act.
Let me point out that since I spoke up a week or two ago on this
issue, I have received a lot of mail, both pro and con. The
government's handling of this issue has created deep divisions.
These divisions would have been unnecessary. Without exception
the criticism I received did not counter my arguments. It only
called me names. Pinning labels on those who disagree is hardly
legitimate debate.
I pointed out that buggery was against the law back in the 1950s
and is still in the criminal code today with two exceptions.
Today one can receive benefits from the federal government if one
practises it. As a noted person once said, if we want to get a
jackass to listen, first we have to get his attention. By
pointing out that we as a society have changed since the 1950s,
people did pay attention. Many were shocked.
Here is another aside. Those who are preaching tolerance and
respect, those who are criticizing me now quite verbally, do not
respect the alternate point of view or even listen to the
arguments.
The experience I have had in dealing with children is
underscored by Statistics Canada data. I would now like to go
through that. Two years ago Edmonton journalist Lorne Gunter
analyzed how costly common law relationships are for taxpayers.
Here are some of the startling facts he found published in
Statistics Canada data.
Sixty per cent of domestic violence occurs in common law
marriages. The chance that a woman or a man in a common law
arrangement will be the victim of abuse is more than nine times
that of a married person.
1355
Sixty-three percent of children born in common law relationships
will witness their parents separate before they reach 11 years of
age. This compares to just 14% for those children whose parents
never lived together before marrying and 26% of those children
whose parents shacked up together before getting married.
Forty percent of common law relationships end before marriage.
Couples who live together before exchanging marriage vows are
more than 50% more likely to divorce than couples who did not
shack up.
How do these family breakups affect children? Children whose
parents' relationship breaks down are much more likely to
underachieve in school and in life. They are twice as likely to
drop out of school. 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. They are nearly six times more likely to get in trouble
with the law. Four out of every five convicts come from broken
homes.
Mr. Gunter's conclusion is that marital breakdown is a leading
cause of social problems, perhaps the leading cause. Because
common law relationships are so prone to breakdown, they
contribute disproportionately to social ills and everyone must
live with them and subsidize them.
I gather from the comments from across the way, the members are
not even listening to the relevance of this argument.
An hon. member: Relevance?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: It is a disgrace.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the only power I have
is to tell the people of Canada what the government has done at
election time. I cannot force the government to do anything. It
simply invokes closure—
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Is this the new Canadian Alliance?
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has two minutes left.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
intervention.
I cannot force the government to do anything. It will simply
invoke closure on a bill and will ram it through. The power will
rest with the people. We can be sure that if all the amendments
we are proposing are not made, those people will render their
verdict.
I have one more point. With all the interruptions I have had, I
did not get through my speech. I would like to read a quotation
from barrister and solicitor, Iain Benson. I think he said it
best on March 21, 2000 when he testified before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
He said: “What the gay rights approach has done is struck an
arrangement with Ottawa that divides people into the sexual and
non-sexual, in which only the sexual is recognized outside of
marriage. Yet this is an unfair attack both on the primacy and
genuine social importance of heterosexual marriage and to all
those who are in dependency relationships of whatever sort, sick,
single or same sex where sexual activity is not present or
permissible. Other jurisdictions such as Hawaii in the United
States have determined that other categories need to be created
such as reciprocal beneficiaries or registered domestic
partnerships where the focus is not so, to be blunt, genital”.
I cannot finish the rest. Maybe I will be able to
finish it at a later time.
The Montreal Gazette agreed. The editor wrote:
And when did a sexual relationship become a new standard by which
a relationship of dependency is measured? It is worth
remembering that the existing laws surrounding benefits and
obligations for dependent spouses were designed to support
traditional marriage and, by extension, the raising of children.
The Speaker: Time is up and we will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to remind the House that April is the
Canadian Cancer Society's campaign month. Each year the
campaign starts with daffodil days on April 6, 7 and 8.
[English]
Last week the Governor General of Canada, who is an honorary
patron of the Canadian Cancer Society, officially launched this
year's daffodil campaign at Rideau Hall.
[Translation]
In 1998 the employees and volunteers of the Canadian Cancer
Society collected over $5 million through the sale of daffodils,
which, since the 1950s, have represented, like suns, the hope
that cancer may one day be beaten.
I hope that my colleagues in the House of Commons will join me
in supporting the daffodil campaign of the Canadian Cancer
Society, a volunteer organization operating for the past 60
years.
* * *
1400
[English]
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on February 17, Tara McDonald was tragically murdered
while she worked alone on a late shift at a fast food
establishment in my riding. My heartfelt condolences go out to
the family and the friends of Tara whose young life ended far too
early and with so much promise left unfulfilled.
Residents of Calgary East, with the help of Calgary police
detectives, conducted an extensive search of the area surrounding
the crime scene and uncovered crucial evidence that led to the
capture and arrest of the suspect.
The tragic murder of young Tara highlights a public safety
concern for those who must work alone late at night. I appeal to
the provinces and territories across the country to examine
existing legislation dealing with occupational health and safety.
I urge the provinces to make a buddy system mandatory to ensure
no one works alone late at night. I urge the provinces to amend
legislation to make cameras and security systems mandatory for
businesses that remain open past—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.
* * *
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Cancer Society is the largest single contributor of
funds to cancer research in Canada. This year the Canadian
Cancer Society contributed more than $30 million to fund a broad
base of cancer research across this great country of ours.
The Canadian Cancer Society provides important patient support
and is engaged in valuable public education activities. Without
donations from the public, this important work would not be
possible.
This April thousands of volunteers will hit the streets,
knocking on doors across Canada to raise funds for research and
to raise public awareness about cancer, a disease that kills tens
of thousands of Canadians each year.
Activities planned for cancer month this April include daffodil
days in various communities across Canada. Last year volunteers
raised over $5.5 million through the sale of beautiful daffodils.
This April let us open our hearts and our doors in support of
this very worthwhile cause.
* * *
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this month under the rotation rules Canada assumes the presidency
of the United Nations Security Council. The council is the key
constitutional organ of the United Nations, but its political
authority has been diminished by alleged abuse of the legal veto
power accorded to five permanent members whose own composition
mirrors the political realities at the end of World War II.
We have proposed modernizing the security council by opening up
permanent member status on a regional basis and by limiting the
veto to particular issues or even taking it away altogether where
there is only a single negative vote cast.
* * *
[Translation]
BIOCHEM PHARMA INC.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Industry of Canada announced today a
repayable investment of $80 million by Technology Partnerships
Canada in BioChem Pharma Inc. of Laval for a vast research and
development project, which, if successful, will involve
investments of up to $600 million and enable the firm to evolve
into a fully integrated biotechnology company in the field of
vaccines. About 450 highly skilled scientific and technical jobs
will be created in Canada over the life of the project.
[English]
The goal of this research and development initiative is to allow
BioChem Pharma to develop a new platform technology in
recombinant protein vaccine. The company will create a range of
innovative vaccines that promise safer, cheaper and more
effective treatments of bacterial infections in children and
adults.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP are wailing
and wringing their hands over Alberta's bill 11. Terms like two
tier medicare and private clinics are used as if they are
strictly forbidden in Canada just like they are in Cuba and North
Korea. It is strange that only certain provinces and sectors of
the health care system are targeted by the socialists for their
criticism.
Two years ago the Globe reported that 21 special private
clinics were operating in Canada. In most provinces these
clinics are even funded by the taxpayer, except in Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Manitoba where clients were charged $300 to
$500. No one said a word about these clinics or anything about
these provinces violating the Canada Health Act.
We have a government that allows privatization of health clinics
that provide abortions but not private health clinics that
provide medically necessary heart surgery. This is an obvious
double standard. The dictionary defines a standard that applies
to others but not to oneself as hypocrisy.
1405
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to stay away from that
word.
* * *
WALK OF FAME
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to congratulate two great Canadians, internationally
acclaimed singer-songwriter Neil Young and veteran actor Donald
Sutherland, who were inducted on Thursday, March 30, into
Canada's Walk of Fame in Toronto.
Toronto born, Winnipeg raised Neil Young first recorded with the
band Buffalo Springfield in 1967, and with Crosbie, Stills and
Nash is about to record their first album since 1988. At the
induction ceremony Neil Young thanked Canada for his roots and
his mom and dad for teaching him the value of free expression.
Donald Sutherland, who wishes he was raised in Winnipeg, began
his career in 1963 at the University of Toronto where he acted in
his first play. Since then he has starred in more than 100
films, including MASH where the role of Hawkeye propelled
him to stardom.
[Translation]
Canada's Walk of Fame is an expression of our admiration for
artists and athletes who have made a name for themselves in
their respective fields.
I am pleased to offer congratulations to Donald Sutherland and
Neil Young. On behalf of all of us, I thank you for your
valuable contribution and offer you my best wishes.
* * *
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although the
federal government has managed to build up exorbitant surpluses
by chipping away at the quality of life of the weakest members of
our society, the Minister of Finance confirmed in his latest
budget that his government will not give priority to combating
poverty over the next five years.
Despite six years of social deficit and a surplus topping $130
billion, the Liberal government has made no effort to build new
social housing.
This same government refused to improve the EI scheme, but it
will continue merrily dipping into the surplus of a fund that
does not belong to it without contributing a single cent itself.
As the new millennium begins, the Prime Minister, the Minister
of Finance and the docile Liberal caucus have passed up a rare
opportunity to make the fight against poverty a priority.
This government is leaning more and more to the right.
* * *
GRANDS PRIX TOURISM AWARDS GALA
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
pay tribute to the winners of tourism awards at the 15th Grands
Prix du tourisme de l'Outaouais gala, and more particularly to
Jean Gauthier, who was named Person of the Year.
Mr. Gauthier was singled out for his exceptional efforts to turn
the steam train that runs from Hull to Wakefield through Chelsea
and back into a top tourist attraction in the Outaouais.
All the other winners make the region a very popular tourist
destination as well. They are: the Buckingham en fête festival,
Café Henry Burger, the Au Charme de la montagne bed and
breakfast, the Maison des merisiers inn, the Château Cartier,
Esprit Rafting, Maestro Limousine, the Laurier sur Montcalm,
Baccara and Ferme rouge restaurants, Gatineau Park, the Keskinada
Loppet, and the Casino de Hull fireworks display.
These award recipients are proof of the joie de vivre and
exuberance of the greater Outaouais region. I congratulate the
Outaouais Tourist Association for its excellent work.
And to everyone at the Grands Prix du tourisme Québécois,
Quebec's tourism awards gala, I offer my warmest congratulations
and best wishes for good luck.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in a few days a shipment of PCBs from
a U.S. military base in Japan will arrive at the port of
Vancouver. It is unclear whether the environment minister has
become a victim of Greenpeace hysteria in this case or whether he
is a victim of his own bad judgment.
Let us consider the following facts. Canada has no restrictions
on the length of time that PCBs and other kinds of hazardous
waste can be stored or even how they can be disposed of. Earlier
this year I expressed my concerns to the minister on this
problem, yet he has refused to show leadership on the issue so
far.
It is puzzling the minister now appears to abandon the same U.S.
company to which the Liberals gave a generous $1.2 million HRDC
grant to set up shop in Canada for the purpose of treating these
kinds of PCBs.
Clearly the greater good for Canada and the rest of the world is
to get PCBs out of the environment and eliminate their threat
altogether. It is unfortunate the minister lacks a consistent
policy on the issue. The minister is missing in action.
* * *
CANADIAN CONSERVATIVE REFORM ALLIANCE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it has been said that the transformation of the Reform Party into
the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance or the Canadian
Alliance means that nothing has changed but its name.
I wish to suggest otherwise. At least one thing has changed.
For the first time since my election to the House in February
1995 all parties without exception support the Official Languages
Act of Canada. The Reform Party used to advocate the abolition
of the Official Languages Act. Not so the Alliance. The
Alliance, we are led to believe, embraces Canada's linguistic
duality and the Official Languages Act.
We wish members of the Alliance, and in particular the member
for Yellowhead and the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, a speedy
and smooth conversion on their personal road to Damascus.
* * *
1410
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
repeated occasions in parliament I have asked the minister
responsible for housing why the federal government has been so
blind and unresponsive in helping 50,000 British Columbians who
are faced with a mess of leaky and mouldy condos.
I have asked the minister to work in partnership with the
provincial Government of British Columbia, and I am asking today
that the minister give serious consideration to the most recent
report by the Barrett commission. People's homes depend on it.
My NDP colleagues from Burnaby—Douglas and Kamloops and I have
asked the government not to charge GST on repairs, to provide tax
relief as recommended by the Barrett commission, and to provide
help in correcting mould and spore problems.
The minister's sorry response is that RRAP funds will help. They
do not. The provincial government has issued PST tax relief. Why
will the feds not do their share on GST?
Homeowners are very disillusioned. I ask the government to
reconsider its previous position so these homeowners can be
assured of federal assistance as outlined in Mr. Barrett's
report.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government's communication guru in Quebec and Minister of Public
Works publicly announced that his government had done a good
thing by introducing Bill C-20. He said “Now that we have
eliminated the threat of separatism, investors want to come back
to Quebec”.
That statement is rather astounding, if not downright demagogic.
The minister from Montreal should reread Saturday, February 19
issue of Le Devoir, more specifically the economy section.
Under the headline “If the trend continues, Montreal will catch
up with Toronto” journalist François Normand clearly explains
how the gaps between Montreal and Toronto regarding
unemployment, job rate and per capita income are diminishing.
Thanks to the Quebec government, led by a sovereignist party
since 1994. Thanks for the positive results of its economic
policies.
* * *
[English]
RAOUL STUART BLAIS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to pay tribute to one of
our own security guards and to congratulate him on 50 years of
service to the people of Canada. Constable Raoul Stuart Blais
began his career at the age of 17 in the navy, then moved to the
air force and then the military police.
As a security guard in the House of Commons, Stu Blais has
watched over a generation of parliamentarians and employees and
helped create a secure environment for millions of visitors to
Parliament Hill.
Today, as he begins his second half century of service to
Canada, I am pleased to note that he is on duty in the gallery
and with his family present. On behalf of us all, I salute him
and I thank him.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, today I recognize and thank the many volunteers who are
responsible for running our local food banks.
Last week I visited the eight food banks in my riding. It is
sad to see that the government is still turning its back on the
less fortunate of the country and is leaving them with no choice
but to rely on food banks to feed their families. Without the
hard work of many volunteers working in our local food banks many
families would go hungry.
I take this opportunity to send my personal thanks to the
following people with whom I had the pleasure to speak last week:
Theresa Richard, Rosalie Richard, Noëlla Léger, Val Goodwin and
Jennifer Blacklock, Janice MacKay and Joan Cant, Beryl and Car
Kingston, Vicky Crossman and Malcolm Fife. I also give a special
thanks to Phyllis Carter for volunteering her time for 11 years
at the Sackville and District Assistance Centre.
As a member of the community, I want to thank the volunteers for
the important work they are all doing. I know the hours are
countless.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEALTH
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canada's health care system is in
crisis. What is the Prime Minister's answer? He says that the
provinces should not cut taxes, never mind that his government
slashed $25 billion when it came to office, never mind that it
bungled $1 billion over at HRDC alone and never mind that over
the weekend he boasted about being a living testament “to
patronage at its best”.
Why does the Prime Minister care so little about health and so
much about patronage?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the people of Cape Breton are very happy that we
used government money to help them create 900 jobs and possibly
up to 1,500 jobs. I think it was a very good investment.
In terms of health care, I think the Leader of the Opposition
should check with members of her party, who are on the record.
The member for Calgary Southeast said very clearly that he wants
a two tier health care system. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca said the same thing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, he does know how to mince it up.
The Prime Minister knows full well that he has slashed billions
of dollars out of health care. He presided over cabinet meetings
where members fought around the table as to who would get more
money for grants and contributions for their programs.
Tragically, Canadians' number one priority, health care, was left
waiting in the hallway. Now the Prime Minister will not even
meet with the premiers to try to come up with a solution.
Why does he care so little about the health of Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to say that the total CHST transfers to the
provinces were $28.9 billion in 1993-94. In this fiscal year,
which started two days ago, they will receive $30.8 billion.
That is an increase of more than $2 billion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that includes the tax points. If we
just talk about health care funding, in 1993-94 it was $18.8
billion—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, we know tax points are
not for the federal government to give. In 1993 the government
put in $18.8 billion. It then went down to $12.5 billion. Now
it is back up to $14.4 billion. That kind of math is this
government's track record.
He cut $25 billion out of health care, which is responsible for
huge waiting lines, and he encourages health care workers to
leave Canada, yet he will not meet with the premiers.
If he is so concerned about health care, why did he give another
$3 billion for grants to the bungler over there at HRDC?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. My colleagues, I remind you
to please call each other by your titles rather than using names.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the transfer payments are not only for health. They are
for universities and for the welfare of the provinces.
The reality is that the government has not only re-established
the level of 1993-94, we have re-established the level of
1994-95. This is the only government program where the money has
been more than re-established. Because we have made cuts, the
provinces have benefited a lot. For example, hundreds of
millions of dollars have gone to every province because they pay
less money to the interest on their debts.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister's platitudes may console his colleagues but
they do little for the families waiting for heart surgery.
This government's track record is why thousands of Canadians
have waited months for elective surgery. For every year that
this government has been in power, it has chosen to increase the
spending for grants and contributions rather than health care.
Every single year the government's choice of treating cancer
patients on one hand or buying votes on the other is what it is
always talking about.
Why does the government choose giving cash to its friends rather
than giving health care to Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, I want to congratulate the hon. member for becoming the
health critic of the Canadian Alliance. That happened some
months ago but today is the first day that the member has asked
me a question about health.
1420
While members opposite have been off playing politics, we have
been worrying and working toward a better health care system for
all Canadians. I think I suspect why this member has been
reluctant to raise the issue of health. He is afraid we might
quote the Canadian Alliance Party to itself, like quoting the
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who said that two tiered
health—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is that the numbers do not lie and the
numbers are there in black and white. The government has cut $25
billion from health care since 1993. Every single year it has
chosen to raise the grants and contributions rather than health
care.
The question is very, very simple: Why does the government
choose grants rather than health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a gulf between that party and this government. This
government believes in the Canada Health Act and that party
believes in American style private-for-profit medicine.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said “A two-tiered
health care system will strengthen the public system, not erode
it. This can occur if, within a private system, only private
funds are exchanged and no public money is used”. He went on to
say that the solution to increased resources was to allow for
private health care services. They are out of touch. Never.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
whenever we ask the Minister of Human Resources Development
about Placeteco, she justifies the $1.2 million grant by
referring to Techni-Paint.
However, in the secret contract signed by the National Bank,
Claude Gauthier and Mr. Giguère, clause 6.1.2 provides that
Techni-Paint waives any rights to the grant, up to an amount of
$1.11 million.
How can the minister base her statements on Techni-Paint when a
clause proves beyond any doubt that the grant went exclusively
to Placeteco?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always
happy to talk about Placeteco because the Placeteco story is good
news for Quebec. Just recently it signed a five year contract
worth $8 million with a major aeronautical company, Bell
Helicopter. There are 78 people working at Placeteco with a
bright future.
Does this party want us to dissuade fine companies like Bell
Helicopter from investing in the regions of Quebec? If so, it
should say so. This story is good news for Quebec and its
workers, and members opposite are trying to nitpick and find
fault.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
takes some nerve to say what the parliamentary secretary just
said, since we know that a $1.2 million grant was paid and that
there were 81 jobs at the time. Since then—as the parliamentary
secretary just said—the number of jobs went down to 78. The
government invested $1.2 million to eliminate three jobs.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain the brilliant logic
whereby a $1.2 million grant led to the loss of three jobs?
These are her own figures, the figures she just mentioned in the
reply suggested to her by her department.
She finally gave us the numbers mentioned in the documents of
the Department of Human Resources Development: a loss of three
jobs after a $1.2 million grant. That takes the cake.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
grant was approved there were 64 people working at Placeteco. The
company had some problems and faced bankruptcy. We decided to
stick with the company and not abandon those workers, as this
party would have done.
Therefore, we have a vibrant company with 78 people working and,
as my math tells me, that is 14 more jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, section 7.2 of
the Treasury Board rules governing grants, which relates to
transfer payments, states that managers must make an effort to
avoid making payments in advance, by instead making payments on
account to reimburse recipients for expenditures that have
actually been incurred.
My question is for the President of Treasury Board. By paying
out over $1 million in order to create 42 jobs, only one of
which was created, has the Minister of Human Resources
Development not been in serious contravention to Treasury
Board's rules?
1425
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, herself
tabled an internal audit report by her department indicating
that there were problems relating to financial administration
and practices within her department. She subsequently also
tabled an action plan specifically to remedy this and to ensure
that these practices would conform to Treasury Board policies.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the reply by the President of the Treasury Board.
I would now like to ask the following: Admitting that the
minister noticed an error within her department and that the
payment was made without any jobs being created, why then, as
allowed by the contract, and as the Prime Minister has
announced, has Placeteco not been asked to pay back the money,
since it did not use it for the intended purpose?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
already stated that a review of this file showed that no
overpayment could be established. We have invoices from the
company showing where the money was spent. Everything was
above-board.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
On the weekend the provinces were chided by the feds for putting
tax cuts ahead of health care. Talk about the pot calling the
kettle black. It was the federal budget that allocated two cents
for health care in cash transfers for every one dollar in tax
cuts.
Before the health ministers' meeting, the Prime Minister
acknowledged the need for more money for health care. Why has
the Prime Minister refused an early first ministers' conference
and why has he backed away from his commitment to put more
dollars into health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to repeat what I have said many times in the
House. The CHST transfers to the provinces in 1993-94, including
medicare, were $28.9 billion. The total transfer for the year
2000-01 will be $30.8 billion. That is $2 billion more than what
we gave them when we formed the government. This excludes the
transfer of money that was given to the poorest provinces through
the equalization payments, plus what we have done for Ontario and
Alberta on the—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic
Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
pretty clear that the Prime Minister has refused an early first
ministers' meeting. It is also clear that there will not be more
money for health care until there is a meeting. Otherwise, how
is the Prime Minister to do his kiss the ring routine that he has
come to love so much?
When the need for urgent action on health care is so obvious,
why is the focus on what is good for the Prime Minister and his
election, instead of what is best for Canadians and medicare?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing that is very useful is the ineptitude of the
NDP. It will help us in the next election.
Last year the CHST transfers amounted to $29.3 billion. This
year, 2000-01, it is $30.8 billion. This is an increase of $1.5
billion just in this fiscal year.
* * *
[Translation]
CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, on the
subject of money, a number of heads of crown corporations have
received very generous raises and/or performance bonuses.
For example, the president of Via Rail got $30,000. In the case
of Canada Post—we all know who is the president there—the
figure was $37,000 in salary increases plus a bonus of $80,000.
Could the Prime Minister explain why these amounts were handed
out, when health care needs it so much?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is perfectly normal in our system at the moment for us to
compare the salary of senior executives, and especially the
senior executives of crown corporations, with similar salaries
in the private sector.
We have established a new system by which they receive a basic
salary and a risk or performance bonus. The boards of directors
of each of the crown corporations recommend salary increases to
the government.
It seems to me a system that is appropriate for crown
corporations.
1430
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know what risk is involved in being the president of Canada
Post. I do not know if a risk is involved. I have no idea. It
is a monopoly, or almost.
On the subject of performance, last week we raised a problem.
The Canada Lands Company lost $3 million in a single
transaction, which was not really investigated. We asked for a
copy of the report. The current president is going to get a
$20,000 increase, if you can imagine that.
Could the President of the Treasury Board explain the
performance?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope the member realizes that we mandated an outside committee,
comprised of people from the private sector specializing in
human resources management, to make recommendations to the
government.
This committee, the Strong committee, reported to the government
and in its report proposed that crown corporations be placed in
ten categories according to size, complexity of the job and
mandates given them.
It is standard practice, for each crown corporation, to assign
specific objectives to the senior executives, which serve as the
basis for their year end appraisal by the Treasury—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, at least now it is out in the open. On the weekend the
Prime Minister was singing the praises of what? Patronage. He
called a $13 million grant to a call centre in Cape Breton
patronage at its best.
But that is not what he and his Liberal friends called ACOA in
1988. I can remember reading in Hansard the Minister of
Veterans Affairs said that we should call ACOA the Atlantic
Canada overblown agency. And David Dingwall went on to say that
ACOA was an unmitigated disaster. What were they worried about?
They were worried about patronage.
Why was patronage so bad back then but it tastes so good now?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under that party's philosophy the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer. Those members have said no to the
unemployed in Cape Breton. They have said no to assistance for
farmers, fishermen and miners. But the Liberal MPs on this side
of the House say yes when Canadians are in trouble and that is
why Canadians will say yes to Liberal MPs in the next election.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we wonder if the Prime Minister is looking for a new
title, maybe the patronage saint of Cape Breton. Or perhaps he
wants to be the godfather of Atlantic Canada. We can read between
the lines pretty easily. He is telling the people of Atlantic
Canada, “This is the way it works. You do things my way or get
nothing”. It is like a feudal lord flicking the crumbs off the
table, asking people to stand and applaud and they get to eat a
couple of them.
Why is he belittling the people of Atlantic Canada by saying
that when something happens in Atlantic Canada, that it is just
patronage at its best?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the unemployed and the poor, the
difference between this government and that political party is
glaring. This political party says yes to job creation in Cape
Breton Island. That party says no to the poor and the
unemployed. It does not even say, “Let them eat cake”. It
says, “Let them starve”.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, the federal-provincial health ministers' meeting did not
lead to any progress on the important issue of the restoring of
transfer payments.
Is the federal government's stubbornness concerning the health
sector not the best example of arrogant federalism and the
ultimate in pretentiousness, since it wants to tell the
provinces what to do in the health sector when it has no
expertise in the provision of direct services to the public?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
ministers of health met in Markham, last week.
We discussed money, but we went beyond the money necessary to
save and to strengthen our health care system.
Bernard Landry said a few weeks ago that “The problem in health
is not a problem of money, but a problem of planning, of
management”. We proposed that governments work together to
ensure greater planning.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is
this dispute between the provinces and the federal Minister of
Health not simply part of a strategy for the next election
campaign, to allow the minister to present himself as the one
who will save our health system? This is shameful.
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
only trying to improve the quality of health care everywhere in
Canada, including in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, after presiding over the Devco
debacle, the Liberals are clearly desperate to win political
points in Cape Breton. Using his control over the public purse,
the Prime Minister personally travelled to Cape Breton to reap
due gratitude for the $13 million handout to buy jobs for this
hard-pressed region.
Why does the government think it can spend other people's money
and then brag about patronage at its best?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the jobs are not created, the company
does not get the money. It does get money, which amounts to 12%
of the total wages over a period of five years, if there are full
time jobs. A full time job is defined as 40 hours a week for 52
weeks of the year and the wage is 20% higher than the average
wage in Cape Breton Island.
That political party should be praising the Prime Minister for
the innovative and positive way of creating jobs.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister needs a
lesson in whose money this really is.
Today in the House he referred to this as government money. I
have news for the Prime Minister. This is not the government's
money. It is Canadians' money and they worked darn hard for it
too. Yet we saw the Prime Minister milk this latest grant for
all it was worth.
Was this weekend's announcement really about jobs for Cape
Breton, or was it about votes for the Liberals?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to quote for the hon. member someone who
will tell her which way he will vote next time. “New jobs and
new economic opportunities in a new industry have been too long
in coming to this part of Nova Scotia. The people of industrial
Cape Breton will turn their economy around, given a chance. This
announcement today is a good first step in providing that
chance”. This is from the premier of Nova Scotia, Premier John
Hamm.
Someone else said, “I am a happy man today. Cape Breton really
needs this. I have nothing bad to say”. The member for—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thanks
to the tax on oil companies, the excise tax and the GST, the
government is deriving huge revenues from the sale of gas in
Canada. Recent price hikes have pushed these revenues even
higher.
How can the Minister of Finance decently hide behind the
provinces when he has everything needed to take action now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member must know that only the GST is tied to price increases.
The other taxes remain the same.
Furthermore, as I have already suggested, the provinces are
welcome to sit down with us—and it was Quebec's Minister of
Finance who said that it takes two governments working together
to lower prices substantially.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
was no mention of that. Furthermore, the GST is not the only
factor; taxes paid by oil companies are also going up.
The Minister of Finance should know, as should the member, that
the government's surpluses this year could top $25 billion. So,
it has the money to take action immediately.
What is it waiting for to give taxpayers a break and immediately
reduce the excise tax on fuel?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members on this side, including the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge who raised the point, have been studying
this issue closely for months now. And now, suddenly, the Bloc
Quebecois finance critic discovers that there is a problem. We
have known for a very long time that there is a problem and we
are in the process of doing something about it.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the mismanagement of public money in the HRDC billion
dollar boondoggle has Treasury Board officials desperately trying
to cover their backsides. It turns out that the senior government
department responsible for the good management of our money had
no idea how that money was being doled out.
Why is it that the proper control of public money is a priority
for the government only after the billion dollar boondoggle hits
the newspapers?
1440
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
that is simply not the case. The government has not suddenly
started to take an interest in the proper financial management
of its programs—it has always done so.
There are policies, and the departments must implement them.
Treasury Board is working closely with the departments to help
them improve their administrative practices.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if they were following these procedures before, then why
did the boondoggle occur in the first place? Rather obviously,
that simply is not the case.
The minister has had a long time to address these problems.
People in HRDC have known about them for many months. Treasury
Board is supposed to oversee the financial control of government
money.
Why did the minister wait again until this HRDC scandal hit the
newspapers before she did anything? Why the wait? Why now?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, internal audits are conducted at Human Resources
Development Canada. They are an essential feature of any good
management program.
It is as a direct result of this practice of conducting internal
audits that the department detected serious program management
problems, following which it put in place a plan of action
approved by the auditor general. There is every reason to
believe that we will correct the existing problems.
* * *
CLONING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the public
announcement that the Government of Great Britain was to give
the green light to the cloning of human embryos for medical
research purposes, we realize that we still do not know the
federal government's intended orientation on this important
issue.
Can the Minister of Health tell us if he has made any progress
in his reflection on this matter, and when he will be in a
position to inform us of his position on this vital issue, which
is a threat to human dignity?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
begun consultations with the provinces, groups and individuals
involved. We will be in a position to act after these
consultations have been completed.
* * *
[English]
YOUTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has
been a number of requests from youth organizations across Canada
asking the government to proclaim the first week of May as
National Youth Week. I want to ask the minister responsible for
youth if she would respond to this request.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Children and
Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very positive
suggestion by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
We have to recognize the positive contribution made to this
country by youth. We also have to recognize that they should
maximize the opportunities that are there for them. At the same
time we have to recognize there are desperate needs that young
people have regarding suicide, tobacco reduction, unemployment.
These are challenges that youth face which we have to assist them
with.
It is a very good suggestion and we will undertake to review it
and get back to the hon. member.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the HRD minister had an
accomplice in the billion dollar boondoggle. According to the
information commissioner, Treasury Board is equally guilty
because it did not enforce its own rules.
Why did the President of the Treasury Board refuse to enforce
her own regulations, thus allowing the HRD scandal to take place?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board Secretariat works constantly in co-operation with
the departments. Clearly, when a policy involves transfer
payments, each and every department must implement that policy.
Also, when internal audits are conducted in a department and
problems are discovered, Treasury Board is notified and it helps
the department put in place the tools necessary to correct these
problems. This is precisely what is currently going on at Human
Resources Development Canada.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister have a chat with
the information commissioner because he does not agree with what
the minister has said. If the minister said what we think she was
saying, that there was not a problem in HRD because her ministry
took care of it and audits took place, that is simply not the
case. The commissioner has said her department is equally
responsible, equally accountable. Why did the minister allow it
to occur?
1445
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Treasury Board Secretariat and Treasury Board clearly play an
active role in monitoring the implementation of policies in each
and every department.
This is what we are doing and, in the near future, we want to do
more, to try to provide greater help to the departments to
correct the problems discovered during internal audit exercises.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is regrettable for all Canadians that the Minister of
Health failed to make any progress at last week's meeting of
health ministers. He failed because the Prime Minister would not
let him talk money, even though the Minister of Finance is
reported to have said that there are pots of money for health
care.
The minister had an opportunity to walk the talk. He may not
have been allowed to talk money, but was he allowed to talk
privatization? When he met with his counterparts did he look
across the table and say directly to Alberta's health minister
that the 12 point privatization agreement was off?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this government knows that as the years go by more money will be
required for health care. Indeed, in the last 14 months we have
devoted an additional $14 billion to the transfers available for
health in the hands of the provinces.
This government is also aware that it will take more than just
money to fix the problem. The NDP is the agent of the status
quo. It believes in pouring more money into the existing system.
Let me quote Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario. Last
week he said: “Allan Rock is absolutely right when he says that
if we are going to put more money in, we also have to deal with
the question of reform and not just throw money”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, is it any wonder that we get a non-answer from the
health minister today following the non-event of last week.
I want to be very specific. We are dealing with a crucial
moment in the history of health care. We all acknowledge that
the health minister's strategy failed. The federal government's
plan fell apart. We are one day away from Bill 11 being
introduced in the Alberta legislature for second reading. We are
at a very critical turning point. Given that Bill 11 is an
offshoot of principle 11, will this minister at least do
something that no one else can stop him from doing and rip up the
agreement?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I suggested the process that began last week in Markham because I
think governments have to work together to plan for the future of
medicare. Last week was only the beginning. It will continue.
It may take some time.
We will combine what the Prime Minister said, a long term
commitment to financing with a long term plan to renew medicare.
That is where we are going.
On Bill 11, as I have already told this member and the House, we
will respond at the appropriate time when we know what the bill
is in its final form.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced record high fish
exports totalling $3.7 billion for 1999. This confirms what I
have consistently said in the House about the importance of the
fishing industry to Canada's economy.
Given the tremendous success, can the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans explain why his government has reduced funding to small
craft harbours by almost 50% since taking office, putting at risk
our local wharf infrastructure?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question, which I gave him earlier today. He is absolutely right
that exports have gone up to $3.7 billion.
That is the result of the good work that this government has
done since it took power in 1993, unlike the Tories who closed
the cod fishery and caused a huge disaster in Atlantic Canada.
With respect to the small craft harbours, the hon. member made
representation to me on wharves in his riding. It is very
important to make sure that our harbours are well maintained. We
are working toward making sure that happens.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
minister takes my questions as seriously as he takes our wharves.
It is a joke.
Our wharf infrastructure is crumbling. I already mentioned a
number of wharves in my riding that were decimated by a January
21 storm. Many others are in serious need of repair.
When will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans realize that our
fishing communities need proper wharfing facilities if they are
to continue to provide this very valuable service to our Canadian
economy?
1450
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would talk to
his colleague beside him, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac,
he would know that I announced $200,000 for wharf relief just
last week.
We are working very hard to make sure that we look after wharves
everywhere across Atlantic Canada and across Canada. But there
are only limited budgets and we have to make sure that we spend
the money of Canadians wisely, and that is what we will do.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Having recently returned from a meeting on the conflict in the
Great Lakes region of Africa, I know that there is great concern
about the resumption of fighting in the Democratic Republic of
Congo.
Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing to
encourage all sides to fully comply with the terms of the Lusaka
peace agreement signed last July?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to thank the hon. member
for participating in that conference on behalf of Canada. I
think his contribution was very important.
We have taken an active role at the security council. We have
put forward a series of proposals and propositions indicating
that we would help with the joint military commission, with the
dialogue and with the peace process. Through the good
contribution of CIDA, we have offered money to help demobilize
the child soldiers.
What we are saying is that we are prepared to provide support,
but the parties in the conflict have to make the agreement
themselves.
* * *
INFORMATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, every day we find instances where government
information is not being professionally managed. Records are not
traded when they should be. Records are not properly indexed.
These are not my words; these are the words of the information
commissioner. He has been ringing the alarm bell for years,
especially for the Treasury Board to enforce its own rules and
guidelines.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The
bell is ringing once again. Why will the government not answer?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): It is very
clear, Mr. Speaker, that this government and the Treasury Board
can undertake to improve existing administrative practices and
introduce modern management methods. We must adapt to the new
realities.
Every day, we make improvements, but it is very clear that as a
result of recent events we are going to review the entire
transfer payment policy in the very near future. We are going to
increase active monitoring by the various departments.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today Canada
took up its duties as president of the UN security council.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Maud Debien: All signs are that a referendum will be held
on the future of the West Sahara in the near future, under the
aegis of the United Nations.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm for the House that
Canada will ensure that the UN's rule of 50% plus one will apply
in this referendum, as it did in the case of East Timor and
Eritrea?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, under the terms of
determining the referendum there is an agreement that it would
take place with the parties themselves.
Clearly, what we saw in the case of the west Sahara was that
there was an agreement between the government in that area and
the United Nations. Whereas, we have in Canada an agreement with
the Parliament of Canada as to what the proper formula should be.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a ship loaded with toxic waste is on the ocean bound
for Vancouver and so far the Minister of the Environment has left
the door open to accepting this waste if its PCB content falls
below a certain level.
The waste comes from an American military base in Japan, but the
Japanese will not touch it. The Americans themselves have
legislation prohibiting the import of waste PCBs into their
country, no matter what the traceable levels. If the Americans
will not accept their own toxic waste, nor should we.
Will the minister simply commit to refusing entry of this toxic
waste to Canada, no matter what level of PCBs it contains?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The shipment in question is currently in the United States in a
port in California. We are discussing with the department of
defence as to how this may be handled. I believe it will visit
another American port before coming to Canada and we hope that
the American authorities, as the hon. member suggested in his
question, will be willing to take this waste into the United
States.
* * *
1455
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The last testing which the Department of Transport did on
seatbelts in school buses was 16 years ago. Since that time five
states in the U.S. have made seatbelts on school buses mandatory.
Thirty more have pending legislation on seatbelts for school
buses.
Does the minister have any intention of bringing Canada up to
standard on the school bus seatbelt issue?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that some jurisdictions have made
seatbelts mandatory for school buses, but our officials at
Transport Canada, who are world renown in their testing and
methodology, are not yet convinced that making seatbelts
compulsory in school buses would be in the public interest. We
have to balance off the fact that even worse results could come
from such accidents if young children were belted in and unable
to get out in a very difficult situation. This is something
which requires further study.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
I understand that Air Canada has launched its new schedule. Can
the minister tell the House if these new services will deal with
the overcrowding experienced on recent flights since the airline
restructuring began?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of concerns expressed by
members of the House, especially from Atlantic Canada and western
Canada. The president of Air Canada assures me that the new
schedule which came into effect last night will deal with these
particular problems.
We will be shortly announcing the appointment of an independent
monitor to look at the entire restructuring process and also a
new international charter policy which will not only provide
greater opportunities for overseas services but also enhance
domestic competition.
Bill C-26 is now before the House and I invite hon. members to
help us design ways to better protect the consumers in the
airline restructuring.
* * *
ACOA
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the change of heart of the
Minister of Veterans Affairs when it comes to ACOA.
When the party of Clark introduced it in 1988 he called it the
Atlantic Canada overblown agency. The current heritage minister
and the Deputy Prime Minister voted against it, and several others
voted against it.
Why was it so bad then and so good now?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for weeks and months now the
Reform-Conservative alliance has been demanding an end to all
federal programs that have to do with creating employment in high
unemployment areas, where people are on EI and we see a great
many poor people with children.
This party has now gotten itself a niche in Canadian political
philosophy, and that niche is solidly to the right of Attila the
Hun.
* * *
[Translation]
RCMP INVESTIGATIONS
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
past few months, the RCMP has been asked to conduct several
investigations, including nearly 20 on the files of the
Department of Human Resources Development and a major one on
CINAR.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Could he tell us
whether he intends to make the reports of the investigations
public when he gets them?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is a complaint made to the RCMP
and the RCMP investigate the complaint, that is the
responsibility of the RCMP. The solicitor general does not, nor
does any other minister, tell the RCMP how to conduct an
investigation or what to do with investigations.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canada will preside this month at the security council with a
focus on human security. Will Canada finally speak up for the
security of the people of Iraq, where over 500,000 children have
died since 1990 as a result of inhumane UN sanctions? Will
Canada call for the immediate lifting of these genocidal
sanctions as recommended by former UN humanitarian co-ordinators
Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck? Will we stop calling for
studies and call for action to lift these sanctions now?
1500
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably knows, there was an
agreement reached this weekend to provide additional access to
$250 million for new equipment to go into Iraq so it can expand
its oil pumping capacity.
Furthermore, one of the initiatives we have taken is to do a
major review of all sanctions policy, including a case study of
Iraq. We will be tabling this at the security council in about
mid-April and then asking the council to have a major examination
debate on the application and utility of sanctions, both the
effect on the humanitarian civil side and how it tries to compel
the behaviour to the standards of the United Nations. It is that
balance that we have to maintain as part of the Canadian approach
to human security.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Orders 36(8) I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 11
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 23rd report of the Standing
Committee of Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages,
and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a
petition signed by some 225 Canadians, residents of Vancouver
Island, Calgary and Red Deer, who are overtaxed and demand that
the Department of Human Resources Development account for its
gross mismanagement of $3.2 billion annually.
The petitioners call for the resignation of the Minister of
Human Resources Development and ask that the auditor general
conduct a full and independent inquiry into HRDC mismanagement
and accounting practices.
1505
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions from Canadians who are concerned with the
working arrangements of Canada Post drivers in rural areas. They
petition parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act.
IRAQ
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by
hundreds of residents of British Columbia including my own
constituency of Burnaby—Douglas on the subject of sanctions in
Iraq.
The petitioners note that the sanctions are genocide as defined
by the convention against genocide and take several hundred more
lives each day, and that collective punishment is prohibited by
international law.
They point out that one-fifth of the Iraqi population is
currently starving to death in Iraq and 23% of all children in
Iraq have stunted growth according to the UN FAO, and that the
international law prohibits the use of starvation as a weapon
even in times of war. They note that between August 1990 and
August 1997 over one million Iraqi children died of embargo
related causes according to UNICEF.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to do two things:
to recall all Canadian military personnel and equipment now
taking part in the blockade of Iraq, and to use all possible
diplomatic pressures to urge the UN to end the sanctions against
Iraq.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have three petitions to present. One of them from the
town of Carstairs deals with parliament fulfilling its promise of
1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. It is falling way
behind in that regard and the petitioners petition the government
to do so.
BILL C-23
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two more petitions that come from the areas of
Cochrane, Beiseker, Acme, Strathmore and Airdrie. These are
hundreds of signatures to be added to the thousands already on
file calling on parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 immediately.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I would like to present two petitions on behalf
of my constituents who pray that parliament take all measures
necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains
a serious criminal offence.
BILL C-23
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have three
other petitions from my constituents who pray that parliament
withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
a unique institution.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I present a petition today. Signatures are coming into
my office at a frantic rate of some 800 to 1,000 a day.
The petition calls upon parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 in
light of the motion that was made on June 8, 1999, in the House
to affirm and secure the definition of marriage. In light of
what Bill C-23 does the petitioners call on parliament to
withdraw it.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have hundreds of petitions to
present which are signed by residents of my riding.
The petitioners remind us of the commitment made in 1989 with
regard to child poverty in Canada. They ask us to make good on
that commitment.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an
act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits
and obligations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee,
and of the amendments in Group No. 1.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is pleasure to speak to the bill today although, as
has been noted in petitions already, there are many people who
think the bill should be sent back to the drawing board for a
real working over. I happen to be one of those who think that
the bill, however well intentioned the government may believe it
is, has opened up some ambiguities and some problems which we
will basically have to leave to the courts to solve in the days
to come.
It is always unfortunate when parliament drafts legislation that
is so ill defined and so poorly drafted that basically we have to
throw it open to the courts and say that it is too big an issue
for us and ask those folks to deal with it in round two. That is
exactly what will happen with the bill.
1510
I want to make three points about the bill. Much has already
been said about the status of the bill from the perspective of
the official opposition, but let me just make three points that I
would like to add to the debate.
First, the bill is called the modernization of benefits and
obligations act, but before it was even brought to the House of
Commons for debate it should have been preceded by a healthy
debate both in the House and in committee on the future of
government benefits in general.
It seems to me to say that we are modernizing benefits when
basically we are throwing open the terms and definitions to
interpretation by the courts is not modernizing at all. It is
opening up a Pandora's box. It is opening up a can of worms and
leaving it to someone else to interpret down the road.
It is not modernizing benefits. It may be trying to modernize
language. It may be trying to respond in some way to earlier
court rulings and all sorts of things, but it is not about
modernizing benefit. That debate has never taken place. The
debate that should have taken place in the House and in committee
has never taken place. I would argue that it should have been
sent to committee for extensive review.
When I first came to the House I sat on a joint Senate-Commons
committee that reviewed Canada's foreign policy. We travelled
not only within but outside Canada to get a perspective of where
to go with the future of Canada's foreign policy. It was a big
issue and it deserved a good hearing because it had not been done
for quite some time. Times change and the world situation
changes. It deserved a good hearing and a good airing both here
and in committee.
We spent a year on that committee travelling, interviewing
Canadians, debating the issue and talking about what a modern
foreign policy should look like. We came up with many ideas that
we gave to the government and asked it to bring forward in
legislation and in policy.
The single biggest issue facing most Canadians is government
benefits. It is bigger than foreign policy for most Canadians.
It is bigger perhaps than any other debate with which the House
will ever be seized. The future of all benefits paid out to
individuals; the future of all benefits paid out through the
Canada health and social transfer; the future of benefits paid
out through grants and contributions; the future of benefits paid
to individuals, transfers to individuals; and the future of the
pension system, who is eligible for welfare and how we will have
mobility between the provinces, should have been debated and had
a good hearing in the House and in committee. That was not done.
If people come up with ideas they throw them on the table and
say, for example, that maybe we should have registered domestic
partnerships. At first blush it seems maybe that has some
validity and maybe there is some future to the idea, but it
cannot even be brought forward in this debate because there is no
opportunity. There has been no broad discussion about the future
of benefits paid in general by the government to all Canadians.
The first big failing with the bill is the lack of consultation.
The committee on Bill C-23 never left these hallowed halls. It
never travelled one foot out of these hallowed halls. It never
met with Canadians. It never talked to the provincial ministers
involved. It never met with groups concerned with the
constitutionality of it or groups concerned with the future of
family benefits. None of those discussions took place.
It is not correct to say that we have all the answers in the
bill. We never talked to interested provincial people,
interested family groups or people interested in the future of
registered domestic partnerships. None of those consultations
took place. That is a gross failing of the bill. We will reap
the whirlwind down the road because we have not addressed the
huge number of concerns people have raised and now feel compelled
to send in on petition forms asking us to withdraw the bill and
get it right.
If the government pushes the bill through, we will not be
getting it right. We will be back into litigation. We will be
back into the courts. We will have intervener status all around
for everyone from provincial governments to interested groups. It
will be a lawyer's heyday, which is very unfortunate.
The second problem I have with it is the poorly defined terms
within the legislation.
When ministers of the crown come before the committee and give
conflicting testimony as to the definitions that will guide this
bill in the days to come, we can imagine what the courts will do
with it. When one minister says conjugal relationship means a
sexual relationship and another senior minister says that it is
not about that at all, it is just about having a certain degree
of relationship that will be called conjugal, we can imagine the
first court case. I can see it coming.
1515
Someone will say, “I do not have a sexual relationship with the
person I am living with but I believe I have a conjugal
relationship because no one has defined it”. Where are we
going? We are going to the courts. This legislation will end up
in the courts. It will cost a pile of money.
Instead of defining it as Canadians would like it defined, or
even as the House would like it defined, it will be defined as
the courts want it defined. I do not blame the courts for this.
Once again the government has weak legislation that is poorly
defined. It throws its hands in the air saying it is too big of
a job for the government and throws it back into the bailiwick of
the courts. The courts to give them credit must deal with it and
they will deal with it.
That is not the proper forum. The proper forum is this place.
There needs to be a good healthy debate, lots of witnesses and
lots of input. We could make amendments and changes back and
forth, give and take, and come up with better legislation that
will pass the test of a court challenge. People will be able to
say not only did the ministers all agree for a change, but also
parliament agreed that this is the best way to move forward on
benefits for all Canadians.
The third thing I bring forward has to do specifically with the
problem this legislation will have because of a late edition
amendment the justice minister has made to the preamble of Bill
C-23. The minister, responding to pressure from her own
backbenchers and from Canadians, has thrown in a definition of
marriage. It is a definition with which I heartily agree, but
she has done it in the preamble of Bill C-23 and has refused to
amend the actual statutes themselves.
It is a great public relations ploy on one hand but it is hard
to imagine a weaker affirmation of what I guess is the
government's intention on marriage. It is a weaker
interpretation of what the House instructed on the definition of
marriage in June 1999 when it said that a marriage is the union
of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. All members
of the House approved that definition and said that we should
take all necessary steps to make sure all future legislation
reflected that. Instead of putting it into the statutes as she
should have, the minister in an attempt to deflect some of the
criticism put it into the preamble of the bill and hoped that
would be good enough.
We have obtained a legal opinion from Dr. David Brown who is a
partner in a civil litigation department in a Toronto law firm
and practises commercial and corporate litigation and
administrative law. He is a sessional lecturer at the faculty of
law at Queen's University and has been teaching law since 1989.
He is a senior advocate and a seminar leader at the Ontario bar
admissions course. He is an acknowledged expert in this field.
He said:
If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
“marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others”, then in my opinion [the minister's
amendment] does not achieve that objective. As previously
stated, [the minister's amendment] is not an enacting section; it
will not bring into force any legally binding definition of
“marriage”. By contrast, if the bill was amended to enact a
definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred
to in the bill, then parliament would be giving a clear
indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at
large.
That is what the Canadian Alliance is attempting to do. That is
what our report stage amendments are designed to do. We followed
the advice not only of some of the finest litigation and legal
experts in Canada but we have also followed the advice of
Canadians who have said to put the definition some place where it
matters. Let us give direction to the courts instead of letting
the courts give direction to this place.
Approval of our amendments will strengthen the bill. It will
give the direction the minister says she wants in the bill. It
will be doing all Canadians a favour both now and in the future
in litigation.
1520
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to speak in support of the amendments put
forward by the member for Burnaby—Douglas.
I am proud to be from the riding of Vancouver East. I have had
a lot of phone calls, e-mails and correspondence from gays,
lesbians and straight people, constituents who have been in
favour of Bill C-23. They saw it as a positive, progressive and
long overdue move by the government to recognize equality for
gays and lesbians in terms of modernization of benefits and so
on.
Given the events of the last week or so, it has been a shock to
see how the government at the 11th hour has begun to renege on
the original intent and spirit of Bill C-23. It is caving in to
what I think is clearly a minority viewpoint coming from the
Reform Party and some people in the community. It is very
disappointing to see the government cave in at the very end and
in effect undermine the fundamental value and point of Bill C-23.
I wholeheartedly support the amendments that were put forward by
the member for Burnaby—Douglas. Those amendments are our
attempt to put this bill back on track and to say to the
government that there was a clear intent with Bill C-23. That is
what we should keep in mind here. We should not be sidelined and
sidetracked by all of these other political debates.
In listening to the debate today I have been truly dismayed and
shocked by some of the comments that have been made by members of
the Reform Party.
The Deputy Speaker: It is the Canadian Alliance.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to
figure out what the alliance is. An alliance implies that one is
in alliance with other partners. I do not exactly see people
beating down the doors. It seems like it is the same old Reform
Party.
In the debate earlier today, the member for Yorkton—Melville
spoke about Bill C-23 implementing special rights. He said that
children will suffer. I find this to be quite outrageous and
insulting.
I would like to know from the Reform Party, the new alliance,
how it constitutes this as special rights. It seems to me that
in the debate on Bill C-23 it is using exactly the same tactic it
used when we debated the Nisga'a final agreement. It used this
tactic fairly successfully in trying to divide Canadians, in
trying to say that there are different statuses, different rights
and special interests.
We have to stand today and say that the intent of this bill and
why it was introduced was to live up to the charter of rights, to
live up to the name, the spirit and the implementation of
equality for gays and lesbians. That is something every single
member of the House should uphold and be proud to uphold.
To characterize this now as special rights and that somehow
children are going to suffer, the member owes the House an
explanation as to how children are going to suffer as a result of
this bill. That is what he said. Children are certainly
suffering because of poverty. They are certainly suffering as a
result of neglect. But they are not suffering as a result of what
the provisions are in Bill C-23, or by living in families or
communities where there are same sex couples.
I want to call the member on this issue. That kind of debate is
inflammatory and divisive. It portrays a very narrow,
intolerant, and I would say a very hateful viewpoint which is
aimed and targeted at minority members of our community. What the
Reform Party members are really saying about Bill C-23, just as
they said about the Nisga'a treaty, is that anyone who does not
agree with its narrow and very traditional view of the family is
not to be afforded equality.
The member for Yorkton—Melville went even further in his
attack.
He went on to attack common law relationships. He talked about
people shacking up and that common law relationships were
generally characterized by domestic violence and children were
abused and neglected. I could not believe I was hearing that
kind of assault on common law relationships in the House of
Commons.
1525
I was involved with my husband for almost 25 years in a common
law relationship before he died in 1997. I am insulted by what
that member had to say against all Canadians who for whatever
reason or choice decide to be in a common law relationship.
The remarks today were offensive to gay, lesbian and straight
couples. They portray the arrogance of that party and its
members in imposing their moralistic, bigoted and, I would say,
hateful views on other members of Canadian society. We should
reject that. If we believe in the charter of rights and
equality, then we should say that is something we are going to
implement in terms of pensions and benefits.
In terms of the amendments that are before us and what happened
at the committee, I question why members of the government are
caving in on this. We can see what is happening. We have heard
other members in the official opposition say that they agree with
the amendment of the definition. This is something that has
never been defined in other statutes. In fact, not only are they
calling for this definition of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others, but they are now calling on the
government to amend all statutes, all legislation, to that
effect.
This reflects the real intent of the official opposition and
what it is trying to do to take the debate away from the
provision of equality. Those members are trying to move the
debate to a ground of morals which they want to use in order to
create division in our society.
I am proud to say that our party has always stood for equality.
We have always respected, accepted, encouraged and supported
diversity in our society. What we may see as a traditional
family may be something different to someone else. What we may
see as a conjugal relationship and what we may see as a loving,
caring relationship of two people, are different things for
different people. This party has respect for and commitment to
that. I abhor the fact that the government has apparently
started to backslide and is undermining its own bill in an
attempt to play the political game the Reform Party is putting
forward.
Our amendments are put forward to put this bill back to where it
should be and that is on the modernization of benefits and not a
debate about marriage, not an exclusion of people, not a
definition that says one is legal and another is not. This
debate should be about equality. I urge government members to
reflect upon what the original intent was and not to cave in and
cater to the very narrow interests that are being put forward.
It is very clear that in talking to the Canadian people, we
would find that most Canadians accept, understand and want to see
those equality provisions extended. They do not agree with the
kind of bigoted, narrow-minded definition that has come forward
from the Reform Party.
I hope the amendments will be considered and supported in terms
of the original intent of Bill C-23.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to debate the amendments in Group No. 1 on Bill
C-23. I will debate essentially three aspects of these
amendments.
The first has to do with the matter of definitions. In fact I
would like to suggest that the purpose of the amendment is to
focus on the definition of marriage.
That is the purpose of the amendment.
1530
I think we would agree with a lot of things about this
amendment. I know I certainly would. The suggestion that this
is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others
is consistent with the June 1999 motion in the House.
After looking at these amendments I asked myself what all the
fuss was about with the definition. Why should we care so much
about the definition? I recalled back to a day when I was in
grade eight. The teacher came into the class and said “Class, I
would like you to take out a clean sheet of paper and write at
the top of the page the word science”. He then asked “What is
science?” Science is the orderly arrangement of knowledge.
After having gone through this in grade school, while taking
several courses in organic chemistry in university, I asked a
professor to define science, and he did. Guess what he said? He
said that science was the progressively explicit organization of
knowledge.
There we have it. What is in a definition? A definition tells
us clearly what a thing or an element is and what it is not. It
defines something as being exclusive from all other things.
One of the major contributions that Mendeleev made, for example,
was to categorize the various elements, to show the various
atomic weights of these elements and in what order, the valences
of these chemicals and what they had, and how they would unite
with one another. It was the degree to which one could specify
in detail what each of those elements were, what each of the
definitions are and how they work that progressed science.
As we define things more and more clearly, we are progressing.
That is not regressive. The suggestion is being made that by
modernizing we can somehow expand the definition of marriage.
That is not the point. That is precisely why we have insisted
that the definition of marriage be included, not only in Bill
C-23 but also in subsequent legislative bills that this
particular bill proposes to amend.
Not only does definition allow us to recognize what a thing is
and, by that very recognition, what all other things are not that
particular issue that we are talking about, there can be all
kinds of other arrangements. There can be common law
arrangements, gay arrangements and liaisons of a variety of
natures. They are just simply liaisons and they are different
from marriage. They are not marriage. To expand marriage to
include that would, it seems to me, confuse the issue rather than
clarify it.
What is being sought here is a clarity, to make abundantly clear
to everyone that this is what marriage is. That means that any
other relationship simply is not marriage. It seems to me that
is very fundamental. That is why it is so essential that we
focus on the definition.
We could go on at great length to determine what the other
significant aspects are of a clear definition. One of the most
significant aspect is to clearly identify how things relate to
one another and how they differ from one another. This does not
mean that they are not equal. A toe is not the same as a thumb.
The head is not the same as a leg. However, they are part of a
body. As we define these things, we begin to recognize how they
relate to one another, and similarly in marriage.
The marriage definition clearly identifies the relationship
between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others and that
this be a lawful arrangement as to the exclusion of all others.
It is abundantly clear that is what is being proposed here.
The difficulty arises when we confuse the definition with
something else that it begins to mean something different. It is
expanded to the point where relationships become confused and
where in fact it is not clear any more what ought to be the
situation with marriage as compared to any other situation.
We need to recognize that equality is essential and will only
happen if and when we have clear definitions. If not, what
happens? It means that if we have clearly defined something we
can then go to a judge and to any other part of society and say
what we mean. The judge would then not have to interpret it
differently in one case from another case, from a different
situation.
It can then be applied across the board. The judge can be
consistent, equal and fair in all those cases.
1535
I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice who suggested that the only reason why this was happening
was because the supreme court said so. If there was ever a role
for the House, it was to clearly define what we mean in the
legislation that we write. The last thing we should do is let
the courts tell us what we mean in any legislation. We should
tell the court what we mean without equivocation and without
interpretation. The judge then has to interpret the application
of that law in particular cases. If the definition is clear, he
can do so consistently with equality, justice and fairness. That
is what we need.
What happens if we do not have a clear definition? It is very
interesting to see what happens. First, there is confusion. What
is it we are talking about? If that is the issue, then it is
abundantly clear why this particular amendment should come
forward.
In this connection, I will refer, as my hon. colleague did just
a moment ago, to an interpretation of a rather respected law
professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, a practitioner in law
and a man who has presented various cases before judges. After a
very careful and studied analysis, he came to a conclusion and
said:
If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
“marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others” then in my opinion (the Minister's
amendment) does not achieve that objective. As previously
stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an enacting section—
Those watching must be wondering what in the world that means.
It simply means that this does not enact that definition in each
of the subsequent pieces of legislation. In other words, it may
have force or it may not have force. It is a matter of opinion,
a matter of interpretation. The definition of marriage should
not be a matter of interpretation, which is essentially what this
legal mind has said.
The gentleman goes on to say:
—it will not bring into force any legally binding definition of
“marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a
definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred
to in the Bill, then Parliament would be giving a clear
indication of its intention to the courts and to the public at
large.
Can anything be more clear and unequivocal than that kind of
statement? That is what we are asking the government to do.
The hon. member for Vancouver East stated that we are not
speaking consistently with what people are saying. I certainly
am speaking consistently with what my constituents are saying.
I was in my constituency last Friday and I asked how many calls,
letters, faxes and e-mails we had received in support of Bill
C-23 and how many we had received in opposition to Bill C-23. I
was told that they had not counted the number in support of the
bill because there was only one in support of it. We have not
yet been able to count the numbers opposed to Bill C-23. Is that
not pretty clear? Only one person out of almost 125,000 voters
in the area supports the bill. By far, the majority of people
are not in favour of Bill C-23 as it is being proposed.
In the interest of building and making a better piece of
legislation there are two possibilities. The first is to amend
it so it does what the government is intending it to do. I
encourage the government to do that. The second is to withdraw
the bill until it can be studied and until the people of Canada
can express themselves, as they have to me, as they have to my
hon. colleague for Calgary Centre and as they have to many of the
other MPs in the House. Do it.
We are not here to condemn the government. We are not here to
oppose the government. We are here to give to the people the
kind of legislation and the organization of marriage and of
families that will make our society stronger and will make Canada
stronger. On the basis of that, the family is the strength of
the nation.
1540
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult debate. I
think the reason it is so difficult is because no matter whether
we support or oppose the bill, the government drafters have put
members of parliament in a position where they have to be against
something. If we support the bill, there are strong concerns
that we are against the preservation of one of the key
institutions of our society and are weakening it. If we oppose
the bill, there are assertions that we are against equality and
against being fair to people in this country, particularly
minorities.
This is a very difficult issue for members of parliament. From
what I have heard, there is sometimes more heat than light in
this debate, which is very unfortunate. As members of
parliament, we do want to do what is right, what is best and what
is fair for the people of this country.
I have a few remarks to make which I hope will add more light
than heat to the debate and will help us as members of parliament
and as Canadians to make a good judgment about this matter.
The key concern about Bill C-23, which is the same sex benefits
bill, seems to be that marriage is being fundamentally changed in
the context of public policy. Because marriage is one of
society's most fundamental institutions, we have a legitimate
obligation as members of parliament to very carefully examine
this concern.
I did not speak on the first reading of the bill. I have not
taken an active role on this particular issue to date because, as
most people know, I have been very busy in my critic area talking
about the mismanagement of public moneys in the human resources
department.
Notwithstanding the fact that I have been somewhat absent from
the debate, my office in Calgary received 110 calls, letters and
e-mails on this subject since the bill was introduced. Those
were, to a large extent, unsolicited by anything I did or said.
Of those 110 calls and letters, many of which were very strongly
worded, my office tells me that only one or two were in support
of Bill C-23.
As a member of parliament and as a representative of the people
of Calgary—Nose Hill, I am obliged to take that very seriously.
I will read from one of the e-mails that I received which, in my
judgment, is representative of the concerns that my constituents
brought forward. The e-mail from this constituent mentions three
serious concerns about the legislation. In different variations
of language, I have heard this in the e-mails, letters and calls
that I received.
The first concern was that “this law will eliminate all
meaningful distinctions between marriage and same sex
relationships”. The constituent goes on to say that “we should
be strengthening the institution of marriage, not relegating it
to a list of options for obtaining government benefits”. That
was the first major concern I heard from my constituents and from
people all across the country.
The second concern was that “the bill disregards the deeply
held beliefs of millions of Canadians, including Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and many other faith groups”. This is a
very difficult area. Some of the statements and some of the
critique of the bill made from the faith perspective have been
severely criticized.
Some of the perspectives from faith groups have been very
strongly stated. These are very deeply held values for many
people and sometimes their statements are very unfairly
criticized.
1545
We just heard a speaker from the New Democratic Party use words
like bigotry, intolerance and hate. When views are expressed
from a faith perspective on behalf of millions of Canadians,
whether they are expressed as temperately as they might be, they
have questions that are fair to ask. Labelling their deeply held
values as hate, bigotry, intolerance and reprehensible in a free
and democratic society should be viewed as very troubling.
We have an obligation, whatever our viewpoint, to debate an
issue and to approach it in a very reasonable, logical and
temperate way, respecting each other and other viewpoints. To
label viewpoints, as people on both sides of the debate have
tended to do, is unfortunate, unhelpful and destructive in our
society.
I would urge members of the House to understand the feelings on
both sides of the debate. The feeling of some groups in society
is a feeling of not being treated equally or fairly. Those
feelings are legitimate. We need to be respectful of the
concerns of other members of society about the values that they
hold and about the structures of our society.
My constituent mentions a third concern: “This is a radical
change to our legal, social and moral traditions. Such
significant changes require that there be ample opportunity for
all Canadians to express their views before this bill is
passed”.
This has been a continuing concern about the bill, that it is
being put forward quickly, without very broad public consultation
and debate. Closure was introduced on this bill already. If we
are bringing forward measures which affect the fundamental
structures of our society and are causing the kind of concern I
have seen, then we as members of parliament owe it to the public
to have a full hearing before these kinds of changes are made.
On only one other issue have I received such a number of calls,
letters and e-mails. That was on the proposed bail-out of
professional hockey. I do not know if one would call that a
fundamental institution of our society; however, it did bring a
lot of public comment when government intervention was proposed.
There has been an assertion by the government that an amendment
brought forward by the Minister of Justice would ensure that the
definition of marriage in our society would not change. As is
known from others who have intervened in this debate, there is
legitimate concern about how reliable the minister's assertion is
on that point.
As has already been pointed out, one of the senior
constitutional lawyers in the country provided an opinion which
stated “If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of
federal law, marriage is the lawful union of one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others”, which is what the
minister says she is stating with her amendment, “then in my
opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve that
objective”.
We know that there can be a battle of legal opinions. I am sure
there will be in court cases on this. However, members of
parliament should take seriously the concerns that are raised,
backed up by very reliable legal opinion. If we are going to
change or interfere with the centuries-old tradition of marriage,
then we should do so with full public debate, with a full
definition of what we are doing, and we should certainly do that
only with the concurrence of the majority of members of our
society.
1550
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to debate Bill C-23. As my colleague
has just pointed out, this is a very important issue. I do not
think there is a member of the House who has not received a lot
of correspondence on this issue.
The people of my constituency of Medicine Hat have spoken with
one voice on this issue. They have made it very clear that they
are fundamentally opposed to Bill C-23.
As my colleague has pointed out, we have had a tremendous amount
of correspondence, more on this issue perhaps than on any other
issue. I want to make it very clear that when I speak today I am
speaking on behalf of, I believe, a huge majority of people in my
riding who have serious concerns about Bill C-23.
Why are Canadians concerned about Bill C-23? That is the
question we need to answer. I would argue that the reason people
are concerned about Bill C-23 is that it would change the
fundamental institution of marriage by stealth. There is no big
open debate. We have not had a committee travel the country to
gather input from Canadians on how they feel about changing the
definition of what is one of the most fundamental and important
institutions, not just in Canada but in all of civilization.
As we have known it in this place until recently, the definition
of marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others. That is the tradition that Canadians
hold very important. It is part of our tradition. What is
tradition? As Chesterton said, it is the democracy of the dead.
It is the pronouncement of all the generations which have gone
before. They said that tradition dictates that the union of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others is the
definition of marriage.
Now the government, in reaction to a court decision, is
preparing to change that. We offered it the tools to set aside
marriage and to protect it so that it would not be redefined by
this legislation, which leaves open the possibility that the
definition of marriage would be changed ultimately by courts.
When we offered it the chance to protect marriage, what did it
do? It refused.
In my mind what it has done, very disingenuously, is offered an
amendment to its legislation which would give the appearance of
protecting marriage and all of the various statutes affected by
this omnibus bill, but in reality it would not protect marriage
at all. In fact, we have a legal opinion which states that. My
colleague just mentioned it, but I will mention it again because
it really boils down to this.
As I said at the outset, this will end up in the courts. That
is where this will be decided. Let us listen to what
constitutional experts are saying. This opinion is from David M.
Brown who is a partner in Stikeman Elliott. He is a
constitutional lawyer and a eminent scholar of these sorts of
issues. He said:
If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
“marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others,” then in my opinion (the Minister's
amendment) does not achieve that objective.
He goes on to say:
As previously stated, (the Minister's amendment) is not an
enacting section—it will not bring into force any legally
binding definition of “marriage”. By contrast, if the Bill was
amended to enact a definition of marriage for each of the
particular acts referred to in the Bill, then Parliament would be
giving a clear indication of its intention to the courts and to
the public at large.
Again, that is David M. Brown, a constitutional scholar and
expert giving his judgment of what the government is proposing in
the legislation. I point out that he makes reference to the fact
that if there were a specific definition attached to every
statute, then it would be clear and the courts and the public
would understand that we are proposing to set aside this
definition of marriage as it is traditionally understood.
1555
The government has refused that. Government members across the
way have refused it. Some in the past have spoken up and said
“We believe that we should have that definition in the bill”.
Now some of them, I believe, have been mollified by this red
herring, straw man, or whatever it is, in what amounts to the
preamble of the legislation which Mr. Brown, the constitutional
expert, said would have no impact on really protecting the
definition of marriage.
It is a chimera. It does not exist. There is no protection in
this legislation for marriage as we traditionally know it. That
is the first point that we want to make.
The second point is that the benefits which would be extended
would be extended on the basis of conjugal relationships. What
does conjugal relationship mean? It does not say in the
legislation. In the Oxford dictionary it says “Of marriage or
the relation between husband and wife”. In this legislation
conjugal seems to mean, I guess, any kind of sexual relationship
between any two people. That is what it seems to mean. It is
vague. The justice minister interpreted it one way. The
Secretary of State for the Status of Women interpreted it in a
different way. It is important that Canadians understand exactly
what the government is getting at. Again, the legislation in my
mind is left ambiguous as part of the government's strategy.
That will leave it open for the courts to decide in the future,
which I think is wrong.
I think we abdicate our responsibility as legislators when that
sort of thing happens, but it happens all too often when it comes
to this government. We are legislators elected by the public to
decide these issues. We should decide them based on clear
definitions. We should establish the definitions. We should
talk to the public and find out where they are on these issues.
We should not try to essentially sneak legislation through and
call on the courts to decide for us later. That is an abdication
of our responsibilities, and it is wrong. That is another reason
we should be concerned about this legislation.
I want to shift gears for a moment and touch on something which
others have touched on, which my colleague from Calgary—Nose
Hill touched on a minute ago, and it is on the language that
surrounds this debate. Every legislator here wants to do what is
right in their mind. They want to do the right thing. We should
be mindful of that, even if we profoundly disagree with other
people's points of view.
I absolutely reject some of the language I have heard coming
from some of my colleagues in this place who say “When you
oppose this you are hateful” or “you are intolerant”. What
does tolerance mean? Let us get to the bottom of that.
In my mind it means when we honestly are prepared to hear
another point of view; suspend our own judgment, our own feelings
on the issue for a moment and hear the other point of view.
After we have heard it, considered it and thought the thing
through, then we make a judgment. We decide one way or the
other.
It does not mean that we are indifferent to what goes on, which
is what some members seem to imply. They seem to say that we
should be indifferent, that we should not respond when someone
wants to do something which fundamentally, in this case, would
change the definition of marriage. If we respond in the
negative, then we are intolerant. That is crazy. We have to do
our job as legislators. That means carefully thinking these
things through and making a judgment ultimately.
When we make a judgment, that does not mean we are hateful or
intolerant; it means we have decided. We have made a judgment,
which is what we are called upon to do as legislators.
I urge those who are suggesting that people who do not agree
with them are intolerant or hateful to lose that language and get
down to the serious job of debate.
If they do not like what they hear, I suggest they debate the
issues instead of throwing words around which is so easy to do
and which cuts off debate. I think that is what we are called
upon as legislators to do.
1600
I will summarize by saying that the people of my riding are
profoundly opposed to the legislation. The definition of
marriage as it is has served us well for millennia, for all of
civilization. The people in my riding intend to keep it that
way. They want to preserve that definition. I am doing my job
today as I stand up for the people in my riding. It is certainly
in accord with my own personal views when I say that we must
preserve this definition of marriage. It is fundamental to
society. I urge members across the way and around the House to
vote in opposition to Bill C-23.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-23 at report stage today. I
want to start by congratulating the member for Calgary Centre who
has done such an excellent job of working on the bill for us. I
know I can extend those congratulations on behalf of myself, my
colleagues and certainly all people in my constituency who have
contacted me about the bill. They show a lot of respect for him
and for the great job he has done.
It appears through the legislation that the government has
decided it wants to talk about the private sexual activities of
Canadians. We have to go back some time in history and think
about what Mr. Trudeau said, that basically government should
stay out of the bedrooms of society. Those were pretty wise
words that this government should take to heart.
The idea that we will create sex police, someone who will be
sitting on the hillside watching the bedrooms of Canadians, is
just an obnoxious thought. The member who previously spoke said
that he had received a lot of calls. In my office I have
received some 314 calls about child pornography and 143 calls
about Bill C-23.
If we take what the statisticians would use, for every call we
get it represents about 10 people who are actually interested.
Some would even go as high as saying that it could represent 100
people who actually pick up the phone or write a letter to their
members of parliament. That tells me there is a lot of concern
about this piece of legislation in my constituency. I know the
people in my constituency would expect and would demand that I
stand today to speak to the bill.
In looking at the bill it is obvious that the government is very
much anti-family. It appears that it thinks it is modern, that
it is 21st century, to oppose the very roots of the family, the
very foundation of what a family stands for. If we examine
historical society in different countries it is not a very good
omen for the future of a country when it abandons something as
valuable to society as the family.
Let us examine a few of the areas where the government is
anti-family. Let us start with tax unfairness. Obviously in
taxation there is a real unfairness to the stay at home parent,
either male or female, who wants to stay at home, wants the
choice of staying at home and wants to get the tax benefit for
that. That has not been fixed. Obviously the finance minister
has recognized it. He knows it is there and yet has made no
effort to fix it.
A second item is child pornography. I mentioned that I have
received many calls and many letters. Many people have stopped
me on the street to talk about it. Yet we have a justice
minister who is prepared to let the courts take care of it, to
wait for the courts to act on it. Obviously the supreme court in
B.C. acted on it and said that it was all right to possess child
pornography. Now it is before the supreme court, and again we
are waiting.
Cases are being affected. Judgments are being postponed and
charges are not being laid because of the particular legislation.
This is anti-family. This is opposed to the very thing I hope
everyone in the House believes, that we must protect those who
cannot protect themselves, and that is children.
1605
Let us look at the divorce and family court acts and the custody
situation. How many members of parliament have had parents and
grandparents come in and talk to them about the difficulty of
getting access to their children or grandchildren? That has to
be a crime in itself with which the government has failed to
deal.
I can brag that last week I had a grandson, and I am pretty
proud of that. He is nine pounds and doing great. If I were
refused access to that little guy it would hurt very deeply. Yet
there are constituents who are suffering from such punishment
through no fault of their own. A government that cared about
families would care about the little guys out there whose parents
and grandparents want to see.
Dealing with the Young Offenders Act, how many times have we
been told that it is not working, that it is not rehabilitating
young people and that it is not preventing crime? If we look at
the most recent trial in Victoria the problems with the Young
Offenders Act would only be further reinforced. The government
has not done anything to fix that. We have had six announcements
from the minister that it will be fixed and yet six times nothing
much has happened and nothing much has changed with the Young
Offenders Act.
There is the whole area of sex offenders on parole. In my own
constituency a sex offender who had committed 10 previous
offences was getting out on parole. I met with 300 parents in a
school gymnasium in the community the person was coming back to.
At that same meeting the RCMP said the person would likely
reoffend. The psychiatrist said the person would likely
reoffend. The warden of the prison said the person would
probably reoffend.
I came back to Ottawa with a message from those parents. What
do I tell the parents of the 11th, 12th or however many more
victims? Much to my terrible unhappiness, a year later there
were in fact 11th and 12th victims.
A government that cared about families would do something about
habitual sex offenders of children to put them away and keep them
away. It would change the law in that regard. We cannot have
these people being released. It took everything in our power to
get the picture out so the parents would know for whom they were
looking. In this case the person ended up staying very close to
a schoolyard and unfortunately he picked his victims from another
town. That is what is happening out there. The government is
not friendly to families.
The Liberals say that they are to have a national day care plan.
Another plan. The Liberals are great for having plans and
programs. They love to spend on programs and deliver programs
for which they will get credit. In my riding most people do not
want a national day care program. They want less taxes, more
money in their pockets, government out of their hair and to take
care of their children. They do not need the government to take
care of their children for them.
I could go on. How about the marriage courts? How about the
problems there? How about the case of the guy where a judge
decided the support payment would be over 100% of his salary?
Unfortunately that gentleman could not face it any longer and
committed suicide to get away from that judgment. That is not a
court system or a government friendly to families.
We could talk about the medicare program. We hear the minister
saying that the provinces have no plans.
They do have plans. They are doing things. The lack of
leadership is coming from this government. At least 75% of
Canadians would tell us that health care is their number one
concern.
1610
Now we have Bill C-23 on conjugal relationships. That is
definitely anti-family as we know it. I have many quotes. We do
not know what the minister really means by what she is saying. We
have heard members previous to me read from the independent legal
opinion of David Brown, a lawyer who commented on the amendment
put forward by the minister. He said that it would not work,
that it would not stop the sorts of things that are happening.
We could listen to the secretary of state. We could listen to
the Minister of Justice. We do not really know what Bill C-23 is
all about, except that Canadians know it is poor legislation,
that it is anti-family, and that it is putting the government in
the bedrooms of the country. They are opposed to it. I am proud
today to stand on their behalf to give that message.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
bill is essentially quite simple. It equates common law
heterosexual with common law homosexual and moves very close to
marriage for the purposes of rights, benefits and obligations.
There is not a great deal of legal difference.
The operating premise of the bill is the equivalency of those
three forms of relationships. No one, however, seems to be
prepared to ask if they are equal forms of relationships. At the
justice committee we heard from a number of equity seekers, all
of whom were prepared to gloss over the essential premise of the
bill. No one seemed prepared to ask the fundamental question of
whether these relationships were in fact equal.
Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and I am a lawyer. If you give
over the floor to lawyers you are more likely to hear arguments
based on the charter of rights, which inevitably takes something
of a preordained path. No one seems to be prepared to pull back
the lens and ask some very difficult and troubling questions
about the face of the family in the 21st century. Regardless of
what any of us say in the House, and regardless of what any of us
believe in the House, the face of the family is changing in the
21st century.
I continue to remain critical of the government's unwillingness
to seriously engage in this discussion. I take the definition of
marriage as the one given in the Geneva declaration as adopted by
the World Congress. The natural family is a fundamental social
unit inscribed in human nature and set out as a voluntary union
of man and woman in a lifelong covenant of marriage. The natural
family is defined by marriage, procreation, and in some cultures
adoption.
I believe that marriage is a fundamental social unit of our
society and can only be neglected at our peril. That and $1.10
will get a cup of coffee upstairs. To say that it is a soothing
balm to some is to state the obvious. To say that it is like
chalk on a blackboard for others is equally obvious.
Rather than repeat anecdotes and draw inferences from
experience, I would like members to address their minds to the
national longitudinal survey done by Statistics Canada entitled
“Growing up with Mom and Dad—the intricate family life courses
of Canadian children”. I would like to put some statistical
flesh on the bones of the argument and ultimately return to why I
am critical of the bill.
The survey by Statistics Canada found that 84% of children under
12 lived in two parent families and that slightly over 15% lived
in a single parent family relationship. Of that 84%, about 75%
were with two parent families which were neither blended nor
reconstructed.
If we want to enhance our chances of instability we should live
in a common law relationship over a period of 10 years. The
likelihood of break-up is around 63%. If we want to enhance our
chances of divorce, we should live common law first. That about
doubles the chance of divorce, from about 13.6% to about 25% over
the same 10 year period.
This is somewhat counterintuitive. It does not seem to make a
lot of sense but the obvious observation and the common wisdom of
the day is to try out the relationship first, take it for a spin
around the block to see if they are compatible, et cetera.
1615
Statistics Canada puts it somewhat more drily. The results are
fairly clear.
Children born to parents who are married and who have not lived
in common law union beforehand are approximately three times less
likely to experience family breakdown than children whose parents
were living in common law union when they were born and did not
subsequently marry. Children born into traditional marriage with
no prior common law union are least likely, 13.6%, to experience
family breakdown before the age of 10. Children whose family
lived in common law union before they were married are in an
intermediary category. Family breakdown has been experienced by
approximately 25% of the children where they were born prior to
or after their parents' marriage.
The figures for children by common law unions are by all means
the most spectacular. By age 10, 63.1% of them had experienced
family breakdown confirming the more short-lived nature of the
relationships even when there are children involved.
Who says that all relationships are created equal? Certainly
children experience marriage without common law differently than
children with common law, which is different again from those who
are straight common law rather than gay common law. I do not
have statistical information on gay common law, but one would
have to assume that by statistics at least the rate of
instability is similar to heterosexual common law.
There is not much doubt that children pay for the instability of
their parents' relationship. Forty-one percent of single parent
children have some kind of developmental problem as opposed to
26% for families that are intact. It is quite clear that
children pay for divorce. It is a harsh truth and one that I as
a divorced parent do not want to hear, but experientially and
statistically it is quite true.
The premise of the bill is equality of relationships and many
will argue vigorously that this is what the bill achieves.
In our rush to be inclusive and to practise equality we seem to
have forgotten that marriage is much more than a few economic and
social elements stitched together so as to justify parallel and
apparently similar relationships. It cannot be assumed that the
public good will be well served. Our enthusiasm to be equitable,
as driven by charter decisions, is sending our society in a
direction that assures us that all relationships will be created
equal. Certainly our children know that this is not true. The
question is when will their parents clue in.
Marriage breakdown over 10 years is approximately 13%. The
breakup rate doubles with common law prior to marriage. Over the
same period common law breakups are in the order of five times
more likely than that of marriage.
I submit that these are not equal relationships and should not
be regarded as same for the purposes of public policy. To add
common law homosexual relationships to common law heterosexual
relationships and say that they are the same thing in my view is
a fallacy.
This frankly puts me in a bit of a dilemma because as a
government member I take great pride in supporting the
government. The government has gone a long way in introducing
the definition of marriage into the bill.
I am still of the view that this is a deeply flawed bill and I
wish frankly that the government had gone about it in exactly the
opposite way, which is to engage in debate about all the forms of
family in the late 20th century, to recognize that family sees
many faces in the course of a lifetime and that arguably,
dependency is the basis for determining whether there are rights,
benefits and obligations. Once we determine that, then we can
determine equality, whether it is same sex, opposite sex or no
sex.
Those are my comments. I find the government over the course of
time has moved in the right direction, however I still see the
bill as being very flawed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I stand here today representing not only the clear majority of
the people in Elk Island but also certainly the majority of
people across the country.
1620
Why the government would proceed in the way it is doing with
this bill is a mystery to me. I have said a number of times that
in order for our country to be governed well, we have to maintain
the consent of the governed. That is how a democracy works.
Increasingly in this place because the government has a slim
majority and because of the way our parliament misfunctions, it
is able with a small minority of people to jam its view of things
down the throats of everyone. That greatly increases the
cynicism about government. It greatly increases the lack of
respect for this place.
I have received a large number of communications on this bill,
as I get on a number of different issues. I stand here to
represent what by far the majority of people have said. I do not
have the latest count but I think it was about 200 phone calls,
faxes and e-mails that we have received. If that is a fair sample
at all of the understanding and the desires of the people in my
riding and other parts of Canada who communicated with me, it is
rather overwhelming.
Of all those communications, I received one that said we should
support Bill C-23. That was not from a person in my riding. Lo
and behold I got a second one. It looked familiar so I checked
and sure enough it was a fax version of the same communication I
had received by e-mail from the same person. At this stage one
person has communicated to me twice to say it is a matter of
urgency, go for it.
Let us contrast that with things that are urgent to Canadian
citizens, such as real tax breaks instead of just talking about
them as the government does, real changes to the Young Offenders
Act instead of just talking about them the way the government
does, a real attack on the issue of child pornography instead of
the total stated inaction of the government. It boggles the
mind. No wonder people are becoming cynical about the federal
government. It does not listen and it is time that it did.
We have a record in the House. Over 500,000 people have put
their signatures on petitions begging, pleading and cajoling the
government to do something about child pornography. What is the
government's response? It cannot do anything about it, it just
has to go along.
On the other hand when a small special interest group comes
along and says it wants to expend millions of Canadian dollars in
order to provide undefined benefits to people undefined, the
government says it will ram it through parliament. It will make
sure its MPs vote in favour of it on penalty of being disciplined
if they refuse.
I will provide some history. I have had the privilege of being
in this place for over six years. It has been a great privilege
but it has also had its frustrations of course. About four years
ago, as I recall, we debated exactly the same question. The only
difference is that on that occasion it was a private member's
bill.
One of the features of private members' bills is that generally
they are free vote bills. On those bills members of parliament
from all parties look at the issue, get a read from their
constituents if it is a controversial item or one that has their
interest, and they return to the House of Commons and in true
democratic style they vote the way they are told by the people
who elected them.
On that occasion because of my interest in the subject, I wrote
down the vote results and put them into a computer file.
Had I filed them in my regular paper system, I may never have
found them but they were in my computer and I was able to do a
search. I found the statistics from that particular vote.
1625
It is very illustrative to see how far we have come on this
issue in the last four years. One possibility is that we have
made this dramatic change in the House and in our individual
convictions on this question, or we have been whipped into shape.
It is one or the other. I think it is the latter and it is
shameful.
These were the numbers in the spring of 1996. There was a
private member's bill by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve on
the question of permitting same sex benefits.
Remember that in the previous parliament there were 177
Liberals. There are about 20 fewer now and hopefully there will
be at least 20 fewer next time around. I am hoping for 120 fewer.
There may even be 150 fewer but whatever it is, this is what
happened at that time. Out of 177 Liberal members how many voted
in favour of same sex benefits, a bill very similar to the one we
have here today? It will shock everyone to know that there were
18 who voted yes. There were 18 out of 177. Very close to 10%
voted in favour of it at that time. About 40%, 70 in number,
voted against it. That was on the Liberal side.
Equally illustrative is that 89 Liberals did not show up to
vote. That also says something. If a person is not willing to
stick his chin out and take a stand on an issue, I do not want to
use any pejorative terms but I think it shows a weakness of
character to simply say, “I am going to sit on the fence on this
and I do not want anyone to criticize me for having voted yes or
no on it, so I just will not show up”. That is what happened.
Eighteen Liberals, 10%.
In the Reform Party at that time 11 members were absent. Again,
if I am going to apply the same standard, perhaps some of them
were not willing to vote on it. Because most of us are from the
west it could also be assumed that a number of them were in
travel status on the day of the vote. Almost 80% of Reform
members present voted a firm no on that question because we were
reading what the Canadian public wanted on this issue.
Of the nine members of the NDP, only two voted yes. That is
22%.
Of the Conservative Party, they were evenly split, all two of
them, one on one side and one absent. With all respect the
member for Saint John voted against that bill at that time.
How we have slipped. Things that were sort of accepted as not
being acceptable are being jammed on us by, very frankly, a
minority government. The Liberals had 38% of the vote which gave
them a slim majority here in the House. Without any regard for
the democratic process they have used closure and time allocation
and have prevented Canadians from expressing themselves on it.
They have prevented Canadians from having their say on this very
important question. That is shameful. It is so sad that the
government simply does not believe in representative democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a half an hour, but you have already
signalled that my time is up. That is so regrettable because I
would like to talk to many other issues. Perhaps I will get
another opportunity when we come to the second group and I will
certainly utilize it.
1630
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Davenport, the Environment; the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to report
stage of Bill C-23. Bill C-23 would give out marriage-like
benefits while failing to define marriage in legislation. Bill
C-23 would remove any sort of unique public policy recognition of
the institution of marriage.
The official opposition has tabled close to 100 amendments to
Bill C-23, which would amend 68 pieces of legislation. The
Canadian Alliance amendments, if passed, would define the terms
“spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes affected by
Bill C-23. In our amendments the term “spouse” would be
defined as either a man or a woman who has entered into a
marriage. The term “marriage” would be defined as the lawful
union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why
is that so threatening to some?
The approach by the justice minister in her amendment is an
insincere attempt to alleviate widespread concern about Bill C-23
stripping away any unique public policy recognition of the
institution of marriage.
After much public outcry and pressure from members of her own
party, the minister proposed to add an interpretation clause to
Bill C-23, stating that the bill does not affect the meaning of
the word marriage. The legal affect of an interpretation clause
in an omnibus bill like Bill C-23 is uncertain at best. Here are
the facts.
Bill C-23 is an omnibus bill which would amend dozens of
statutes. Thus, if the bill is passed, the justice minister's
marriage amendment would appear nowhere in the consolidated
statutes. It would not be seen by anyone looking at the online
version of any of the acts modified by Bill C-23.
The minister is taking the easy way out by using the backdoor
approach. Why not affirm the institution of marriage by using
the appropriate legislative tool? Furthermore, the minister's
amendment only affects the provisions of Bill C-23. Will we have
to have an amendment every time the word marriage comes up in
legislation in the future? We do not know that yet, but I am
pretty sure this is another one that will keep lawyers very busy.
In committee a motion to clarify that the definition of marriage
is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others for the purposes of Canadian law was voted down. The
justice department officials said that a charter amendment would
be necessary to effectively protect the definition of marriage.
I find that rather strange, based on a vote taken in the House,
but I will talk about that later.
The justice minister's amendment shows that the Liberals are
under intense public pressure on this bill. Regrettably, the
minister's interpretation clause of marriage would have little
legal weight. In other words, her amendment would not truly
protect marriage in legislation. She is just playing the
political game.
The approach of the official opposition would be to define the
terms “spouse” and “marriage” in each of the statutes amended
by Bill C-23. We would be clear and our approach would be
meaningful about what these important social policy terms legally
mean. If the Liberals vote against these amendments, they are
voting against the definition of marriage in federal law.
On June 8, 1999 parliament passed a motion by a vote of 216 to
55 to take all the necessary steps to preserve the definition of
marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others. The result of that vote was pretty definitive. It
was not even close.
It is time for the government to act on this directive and show
some courage against those who would want to destroy it.
The Liberals are pandering to those who want to devalue marriage
as a cornerstone of public policy. Marriage produces real and
tangible public policy benefits. Liberal cabinet ministers
cannot get their stories straight on who would qualify for
benefits as a result of Bill C-23.
The justice minister says that Bill C-23 would not extend
benefits and obligations to individuals in other relationships of
economic and emotional interdependence like ordinary roommates.
1635
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre, said that one would not have to have a physical
relationship to qualify for benefits under Bill C-23.
Who do we believe? The Minister of Justice who says only
opposite or same sex couples involved in a sexual relationship,
or the secretary of state who says there does not have to be a
sexual aspect to the relationship? All of this is very confusing
coming from ministers of the government.
Getting back to the minister's solution to sorting out the mess
she created, allow me to read a legal analysis of her amendment
as offered by the law firm Stikeman Elliott, which is a very well
respected firm in Toronto, especially for its litigation
department. It also practises corporate and administrative law.
It has practised before the supreme courts of Canada and all over
the country, and we should respect what it has to say about this
law. It certainly has as much knowledge of what will happen as a
result of the bill as any of the lawyers working for the
ministry. I quote what that firm had to say about Bill C-23:
In sum, the justice minister's amendment would operate to tell
the courts that any of the amendments made by the bill were
intended not to affect the meaning of the word marriage. This
would only have a practical effect if one of the specific acts
already contain the definition of the word marriage in some part
of the act not amended by the bill. It would be difficult to see
what use courts could make of the interpretive guide offered by
the minister's amendment.
Allow me to quote further from the legal opinion:
If parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
marriage is the lawful union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others, then in my opinion the minister's
amendment does not achieve that objective.
That quote comes from Stikeman Elliott, one of the most
respected law firms in the country. It stated that in its
opinion the minister's amendment does not achieve the objective
it is trying to achieve.
The minister's amendment is ambiguous and does not send a clear
directive to the courts about the definition of marriage. What
does that mean? It means that millions of dollars will be spent
over the next number of years with lawyers going to the courts
trying to seek a definition.
Why would parliament, when it has the opportunity at report
stage, not put forward proper amendments to the bill to make sure
that we tell the supreme court and the other courts what the
definition of marriage is when it was voted on by an overwhelming
majority of members of parliament? But the minister's bill,
according to Stikeman Elliott's report, does not achieve that
objective.
The same legal opinion offers three methods which would
constitute clarity and weight for the courts. The first would be
to amend the Marriage Act to include a specific definition of
marriage. The second would be to amend the bill to include an
enacting section which would provide that, for the purposes of
all federal legislation, the word “marriage” would mean the
lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others. That has already been voted on by the House and the
government should be taking the directive it was given by a very
big majority of members of the House. The third would be to
amend the bill to include amendments to each affected act,
enacting in each such act a specific definition of the word
“marriage”.
Bill C-23 is a very flawed piece of legislation. That has been
indicated not only by opposition members of the House, but by
members of the government who have spoken against parts of the
bill. We have an opportunity at report stage to move amendments
which have been recommended by major law firms from across Canada
and the government should take them seriously.
The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies for benefits.
They refuse to deal with the definition of marriage and they
refuse to stand for the family.
There is an opportunity at this stage to vote for amendments
which could change that opinion, which is shared by many
Canadians and many law firms.
I thank the House for the opportunity to put forward not only my
opinions, but those of many legal people from across Canada and
those of Canadians concerning the faults of this bill.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon to speak
to Bill C-23. My colleagues have expressed many things which are
wrong with the bill.
1640
I would like to commend my colleague from Calgary Centre who has
worked very hard on the bill, has analyzed the bill, has shown
what is wrong with the bill and has put forward amendments. I
would like to congratulate the member and his staff for their
hard work.
The bill has opened up the debate on two fronts. First, on the
definition of marriage and what marriage means, and second, on
benefits. What is a benefit? To whom would the benefits apply?
I received a tremendous amount of calls in my office when the
bill was introduced. There were close to 50, and not a single
one was in support of the bill. All the calls that came in were
against the bill.
I find it quite distressing that my colleagues from the NDP have
gone out of their way to use words like bigotry to express their
point of view, especially the lead speaker for the NDP who used
very harsh words in expressing his view of those who oppose his
point of view. If I recall correctly, this member trots around
the world and stands for minority rights, for other people's
right of free debate.
Today we are in the House having this debate, and Canadians have
expressed a concern about the bill. They have expressed serious
reservations and serious concerns. Instead of the member
listening to what other Canadians are saying, the member accuses
us and calls us all kinds of names. Perhaps if he listened and
came up with some positive solutions we would be further ahead in
achieving many of the things which would be of benefit to
Canadians.
About three months ago I had a call from a constituent who was
living with a same sex partner. We had a very interesting
discussion. I must say that it was a very, very civil
discussion, with none of the rhetoric that we hear about bigotry
or anything like that. I expressed to my constituent my personal
view, which is quite simple: that every human being is entitled
to dignity. He may have an alternate lifestyle or he may have
some other point of view, but he is entitled to dignity and he is
entitled to live in Canada with his head held high, without fear
of discrimination. I expressed that point of view, that any
Canadian must be able to walk on the streets of Canada without
fear and without discrimination. That is what we should be
aiming for. One of the ways to do that is through education. We
have come a long way in that respect.
I had the privilege of talking to my colleagues in the Bloc. I
actually travelled with my colleagues in the Bloc. We have a
fantastic relationship as friends and I respect them. But when
it comes to a question that is fundamental in society, then we
differ. All the reasoning and all the name calling that is
directed at us does not go a long way in addressing this issue.
To get back to Bill C-23, let us talk about benefits. The bill
is absolutely flawed. The bill gives benefits based on sexual
preference. It leaves out many other issues on dependency which
should have been included. I would like to know why these issues
were left out.
I read the statement which the justice minister gave at
committee on February 29, 2000, that the issue of dependency is a
separate issue.
Then she said the same sex benefit also affected a bigger issue
which, perhaps from her point of view, was trying to define
marriage. The second problem originates with the definition of
marriage.
1645
In June we in parliament defined marriage as a union between a
single man and a single woman. Parliament made quite clear the
definition of marriage. In listening to the speech of my
colleague from the NDP he talked about the benefit issue and
marriage. He is looking at the bill as parliament sanctioning
marriage, which is a concern of many Canadians.
Canadians view marriage as a union between a single man and a
single woman. That is the view of society. There are many
reasons that society views it in this way. I do not think I need
to go into them. They have been debated very well. When it
comes to whether it means we will look down on those who choose
an alternate lifestyle, it is an individual choice. I personally
do not look down. It is a choice that someone has made but it is
not my choice.
I do have a problem when this choice is forced through other
means. In Surrey, B.C., the school board is talking about
teaching this to children. Some of us will have objections to
that. Why not? In the same way as he has his point of view, I
have my point of view. Perhaps he should understand that he
should recognize my point of view as well, instead of screaming
over there that we are bigots and whatnot. It is a point of
view. It is a public school and as we can see from the Surrey
debate parents are apprehensive about it. Religious groups are
apprehensive about it. That is acceptable in society.
The debatable question is about marriage. As I said, in
listening to my colleagues who support the bill, they are moving
away from benefits into the issue of marriage. That is a major
concern. My colleague introduced an amendment to ensure that the
views of Canadians regarding the issue of marriage were addressed
in all 68 statutes.
The justice minister has made an amendment. In all the 50 calls
that I received I told them that if they wanted to be effective
they should phone the justice minister. I bet that calls were
made to the justice minister and hence she ran to the drawing
board and came back with something haphazard by including the
definition of marriage. If she is willing to go back one step,
what is wrong? Why can she not put that definition in all the
statutes so that it is very clear to the courts every time they
look at the definition of marriage.
The bill is asking in all 68 statutes that same sex be included.
Our main point is that the definition of marriage be recognized
as my colleagues have stated and as was indicated quite clearly
in an independent legal opinion which I should like to repeat:
By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of
marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill,
then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its
intention to the courts and to the public at large.
1650
This was done by the motion in June of last year.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I last had an opportunity to speak to the bill on
February 21. In the period of time since then and considering
the momentous number of things the bill would change, the lack of
interest by the national news media in this debate, particularly
in getting the information out to the Canadian public so that it
might be made aware of the implications, has been interesting.
I believe that any society in the world is no stronger than its
smallest unit. Unfortunately legislation that we pass in the
House frequently chips away at the ability of Canadians to
organize themselves in any way to enhance their family unit,
which is the smallest unit in society.
The Liberal government introduced legislation called the same
sex omnibus bill. It will grant a same sex couple virtually all
the benefits and responsibilities of common law couples.
Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in
relation to benefits and obligations, would amend 68 federal laws
affecting key departments and agencies. The bill creates a new
term called common law partner, defined as a person cohabiting
with another person of either sex in a relationship for a year.
Probably the most serious single oversight of the Liberals is
that they chose not to define the word conjugal. The common
definition of a word may or may not become the legal definition.
Lack of definition in this legislation requires the judges to
make law. Conjugal will likely mean intimate sexual activity.
The government wants us to believe that the bill merely gives
same sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual
couples. As I mentioned at the outset, unfortunately the
mainstream news media are basically ignoring the entire issue
being debated not only today but for the time it has been before
the House of Commons.
I think the word news is made up of the word new in that they
want to have something new. I would therefore draw to their
attention what my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have been
reading and reading and reading all day long.
It is the opinion of Mr. David M. Brown, a partner in Stikeman
Elliott's civil litigation department in Toronto. He practises
commercial and corporate litigation and administrative law. Mr.
Brown is a sessional lecturer at the Faculty of Law at Queen's
University where he has taught trial advocacy since 1989. He was
a seminar leader for the civil procedure section of the Ontario
bar admissions course.
Mr. Brown has appeared at all levels of court in Ontario and
Manitoba, as well as frequently before the Supreme Court of
Canada. Major constitutional briefs have included being counsel
for interveners before the Ontario Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court of Canada in Rosenberg in 1998 and M v H in 1999.
This person's opinion has some very distinct weight in the
context of the minister coming to the justice committee and
saying “We are going to define marriage and this is how we are
going to do it”.
The Minister of Justice is also a distinguished lawyer. I
believe she has taught law at least at one university in Canada.
Therefore it is hard for me to understand how she could have
missed the obvious item that Mr. Brown has pointed out:
If Parliament intends to state that, as a matter of federal law,
“marriage” is the “lawful union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others,” then in my opinion the Minister's
amendment does not achieve that objective. As previously stated,
the Minister's amendment is not an enacting section—it will not
bring into force any legally binding definition of “marriage”.
By contrast, if the Bill was amended to enact a definition of
marriage for each of the particular acts referred to in the Bill,
then Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its
intention to the courts and to the public at large.
1655
I mention again that it is a responsibility in a democracy for
us to have freedom of the press, but it too has a responsibility
to bring to the people of Canada these facts and these words. It
is the opinion of this respected scholar that the justice
minister, either in haste or perhaps in ignorance, clearly missed
the boat by not putting this definition into the enacting part of
the legislation. I would not dare suggest any other motivation
on the part of the minister.
We have spoken all day long about the fact that this is an
attack on marriage. Although it was unlikely intended that is
exactly what the bill is. Its consequences will abolish marriage
as a specific relationship under federal law.
The purpose of the bill is to open up the unique rights and
privileges of heterosexual married couples to those cohabiting in
a conjugal relationship. This is very troublesome. To acquire
proof of conjugal or sexual relationships between individuals
would necessitate a gross intrusion into the bedrooms of Canada.
When Pierre Trudeau was prime minister he said the nation had no
place in the bedrooms of Canada. Yet the same Liberal Party is
now stating that benefits will be available on the basis of
sexual intimacy.
Considering that Revenue Canada insists on snooping into every
conceivable part of our lives, even to the point of spying on
Canadians to establish criminal activity when reporting income
tax exemptions and expenses, it is absurd to extend benefits
under the Income Tax Act on the basis of private personal
activity that cannot and must not be monitored. I make this
point very clearly.
There is confusion between the Minister of Justice and the
junior minister from Vancouver Centre. There will be court
intrusion. Let me state again to single parents that going into
the 21st century we recognize there are many single parent
families, sometimes based on choice and sometimes based on
uncontrolled events. This is why Canadian society has correctly
decided, along with the rest of the world's nations, to extend
special benefits to people with relationships similar to the
heterosexual traditional family unit. Those benefits are
extended to single parents, along with family units related by
blood, marriage and adoption.
Here is something that is very troublesome. The fact that the
government intentionally chose not to include a definition of the
word conjugal turns that definition over to the courts. We have
seen in at least a half a dozen cases in the last four or five
years where the supreme court has intruded into where parliament
wanted to go with particular law. I think of the Feeney case in
British Columbia. Basically it excluded all sorts of evidence
that was taken when a person was in flight from the police having
just committed an absolutely terrible murder. He bludgeoned a
person to death.
In the so-called Feeney case the supreme court said that all
that evidence must be excluded because there was no warrant to
walk into the person's house who had just fled the scene of the
crime. The House of Commons, therefore, had to deal with this
intrusion, and I call it an intrusion, by the supreme court
clearly defining where the police can and cannot go. In fact the
enforcement powers in Canada have had their ability to move
forward and take enforcement actions seriously hampered by the
supreme court.
I cite that as one example of the fact that we in parliament
have a responsibility to the people of Canada who elected us to
come forward with correct, clear and concise legislation. When
the government turns around and will not define the word
conjugal, it invites the supreme court and any other court to
define that word. In other words it invites the courts to make
laws that the Liberals do not have the intestinal fortitude to
bring forward.
When that sees piled on top of it this situation where the
justice minister has come forward with an amendment that appears
to be doing what Canadians want but in fact will not, is a
serious problem in terms of this legislation.
1700
This legislation in my judgment is not at all reflective of the
values of people in Canadian society.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
many of us in Canada this is a very difficult issue. As I came
to the House this afternoon I had to put down a few of my
thoughts on it. I want to refer to some very difficult
situations which we as Canadians have to face.
We all recognize that with the supreme court decision, we as a
government are literally being told that people who are involved
in sexual relationships of the same gender should be acknowledged
in terms of the benefits that might be available to them as
citizens of the country. I personally feel we are offering a
special status to certain groups in our society. It is a status
which is outside marriage and one which is based, as the
amendments would say, on conjugal relationships that are not of a
traditional nature.
Nearly every religion I have studied has had a great respect for
marriage. If we go back to our Biblical stories which deal with
Adam and Eve, Eve came as part of a man and was made his
helpmate. The two of them developed according to Christian ideas
and Christian teachings a world civilization on which we as a
Canadian nation have based our general philosophy. We have seen
throughout Biblical teaching various aspects of different sexual
relationships. In fact after the great flood in the story of
Noah, there were sexual activities that were condemned by the
general society in which Noah lived.
The response I have had from across New Brunswick and especially
in the Miramichi, is that a great number of people are concerned
about how marriage might be interpreted if we as a government
accept the new standards in which people have special rights in
terms of their sexual relationships. In regard to my own
community, I have had e-mails, letters and phone calls and they
run about 99% showing great concern about what the government is
doing.
We have to realize that in terms of relationships and
dependency, there are a great number of different aspects by
which people are dependent upon one another. I can think of
situations in my own community where two brothers or two sisters
live together, or where a brother and sister have shared a
household. When I look at those relationships and I consider the
bill before us which amends various acts, it gives me a great
deal of concern.
I have to be concerned in that the definition we write today
which will be in the preamble will not really apply to all of the
different acts which we are attempting to amend. I would
certainly want to ensure that if we are going to write marriage
into the general amendments of the various acts, we should put
the same definition into all aspects of the acts that are
affected by these changes.
We as Canadians have always been tolerant of all forms of
relationships, but the basic concept of marriage and the family
values that this country needs to develop are very important. All
of us have friends and people we know who are involved in
different types of relationships. But in terms of the bill which
we are looking to amend various parts of the different benefits
and relationships that we might have under the law, we certainly
should not base it upon sex.
In the marriage vows that many of us have taken, there is no
definite aspect which says that we have to be involved in a
sexual relationship. Yet with these changes, we are saying that
people who are involved in conjugal relationships are the only
ones who will receive benefits of the various plans that our
government has available.
I want to go on the record as representing my community which
has great concerns with this bill. It is my suggestion that this
bill should be set aside until the government can put before the
House a definite concept of what other relationships might cost.
1705
We must not in any way discriminate against other family groups
who are not sexually involved but who represent a great tradition
of this country. I hope all of us as parliamentarians can look
at this and hopefully table this legislation until such time as
we fully study the costs and benefits of all types of loving
relationships that exist in the country.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before resuming
debate I want to come to the points of order raised earlier today
concerning the admissibility of Motions Nos. 3 and 4 on the
notice paper which were selected for debate at report stage of
Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation
to benefits and obligations.
Motion No. 3 in the name of the member for Burnaby—Douglas is
identical to the text of a subamendment moved in the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights during a meeting on March
23, 2000 and defeated in a recorded division. Motion No. 4 in the
name of the member for Elk Island is similar to another motion
moved in that committee. Under normal circumstances such motions
would not be selected for consideration at report stage. I have
looked carefully at the two motions and after appropriate
consideration, I am convinced that they do fulfil the
requirements to be selected in that they have such exceptional
significance as to warrant a further consideration at report
stage.
Accordingly, both motions remain selected for debate and voting
purposes in Group No. 1.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure I suppose to speak to Bill C-23,
the modernization of benefits and obligations act.
I am opposed to this not only like my colleague on the Liberal
side who spoke just a moment ago, because I think there are major
flaws in the legislation, but I am also opposed to it because
many people in my constituency of Langley—Abbotsford have
expressed their absolute opposition to such a bill. Not only
have they expressed their opposition but they have asked me why
this omnibus bill is going through the House of Commons already
when practically nobody has heard much about it in terms of
talking to the people of the land.
I know for a fact having been in the House for almost seven
years, that omnibus bills are creatures of confusion. We have
seen many omnibus bills go through the House. I can recall one
which was a justice bill. It took us literally months to figure
out what was in the darned thing before we could even make
decisions on it.
Now that we have looked at Bill C-23 we see major flaws with
which the government will not deal. Unfortunately it will deal
with them by leaving it up to the courts of the land.
I do not want to get into a large discussion about my confidence
in letting the courts of the land deal with legislation or we
would be here for a long time. I do not think legislation on
issues such as these, benefits under the Income Tax Act or the
Pensions Act, should be decided upon by the legal industry. That
is where we continually go wrong. We develop an omnibus bill,
make it law and throw it to the courts when it does not fit. We
are already telling the government it does not fit and members of
the government are saying it is flawed.
Why on earth the government wants to continue to push this I
could say is beyond me, but it is not. It is typical. Lo and
behold, once the government gets it through the Senate and royal
assent, people will be asking a lot of questions. They will be
saying “Gee, I did not know it was going to affect me this
way”.
1710
That is what is wrong here. We are trying to head this off
already and the government is saying, “It is going through
anyway on time allocation. Cut your speeches short. You have
only got 10 minutes, no questions. Let it go”.
I want to address some of the things that concern me. I know it
has been mentioned but I am going to change my approach a little.
I had the occasion not too long ago to talk to four young
fellows. I knew them all. They were sitting around and I asked
them about Bill C-23. First of all they did not know much about
it. They said, “On this conjugal relations stuff, you can say
whatever you want about it, but if the benefit befits us, if it
is good for us, we will say whatever it takes. We will do it”.
That may sound a little funny but the reality out there is that
when someone wants to take advantage of a piece of legislation,
within the parameters of law they will do so. They will do so
regardless of what we call their relationship. They will just
say, “Yes, that fits me and this person and that is what we are
going to do”.
The government should know that just by defining things based on
a conjugal relationship which is undefined, many people frankly
will use that terminology and say, “Yes, that befits me, so
where is my benefit?” That is what many people are trying to
say. We just cannot rewrite society's rules to fit a piece of
legislation.
Bill C-23 introduces the term “common law partner” which is
defined as a person cohabitating with another person in a
conjugal relationship for a year. For pension benefits Bill C-23
uses the term “survivor” instead of words like “spouse”.
The government refuses to define conjugal relationship, so again
who actually qualifies under that terminology is going to be left
to the courts, if we can imagine that. It will not just be one
court case that is going to cost someone a lot of money. It will
be case after case after case.
I have been in enough court cases in the land; I am not a lawyer
but I have been through them. What happens in the court
situations is that decisions by the judiciary will tend to go for
the lowest common result. Once it is established that a conjugal
relationship exists in one decision, someone else will come in
and say if it fits there, it should fit for them and it will go
to that level. The next person will say, “Conjugal
relationship, yes, under the Income Tax Act that is me”. They
will go to the next level and on and on it will go.
This is an expensive, undefined category. It should not be in
legislation unless it is clearly understood, clearly defined and
clearly agreed to by the majority of Canadians. It is as simple
as that. I have heard my colleagues say this for months now. But
there is still a majority situation in the House of Commons where
a government with a slim majority says, “We stand here and tell
our people how to vote and that is the way it is going to be. All
of you people who do not like this, that is just too darn bad”.
The justice minister indicated that only those engaged in a
sexual relationship would qualify under the bill. However this
was not so clear from testimony before the justice committee. As
a result there is much uncertainty about what conjugal means. How
on earth did we ever get to defining what benefits are allowable
to individuals under any act based on sexual activity? Where are
we coming from?
Mr. Werner Schmidt: And where are we going?
Mr. Randy White: “And where are we going,” as my colleague
has said.
It is good to see that we have resolved all the problems in this
nation and now we are ready to create some new ones.
That is the way this group is thinking. This kind of convoluted
thinking, that benefits should be entrusted or entitled to an
individual based on a sexual relationship, could only make sense
to politicians because it does not make sense to anybody else. I
should clarify for these fellows over here that it is not all
politicians and not everybody on the government side who agree
with this.
1715
Common law partners are not required to register anywhere in
order to claim benefits, nor are there provisions for information
sharing between departments. Thus, couples could apply for
conjugal benefits under one piece of legislation while
maintaining that they were simply roommates or friends for
another piece of legislation, which might impose some
obligations.
I will go back to my four young friends who could say “Yes,
this is conjugal if there are benefits here for us”, but if it
were another piece of legislation, they could say “No, we are
just roommates. There is no sex here”.
I defy anybody from the other side to stand up and say that this
legislation is good, that it will stand the test of time, that it
is defined, that it will not cause much confusion and that it
will not cost a lot of money. If members do stand up they will
only do it because they were told to do it. What members on the
other side need to do is to stand up and say “We have to look at
this further. It is flawed and has serious problems. I do so
because the people of my riding expect that of me”. That is
what we expect of them.
This legislation is flawed and it must be defeated. I ask
members on the other side to thoroughly consider this advice and
do what is good for the country, not what is good for their
party.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I, like my previous colleague, am also quite confused as
to where we are going when we spend hours in the House of Commons
debating this type of bill.
I have been waiting since 1997, since the present Minister of
Justice became the minister, for legislation to come forward that
would have some meat in it and some valuable answers to the
serious problems that we have in the country regarding crime.
When I look across the land, I see the number of victims we have
to deal with. I see the number of young people who are suffering
at the hands of other young offenders. I see the amount of drugs
that are flowing on our streets and in our cities. We have young
children on our streets serving as prostitutes. I see the
difficulties we are facing with regard to gangs that are building
strength across the country. I see the problems in our prisons.
I see the absolute turmoil we are facing when it comes to
criminals, the law and the protection of society. However, I
have yet to see any legislation from the Department of Justice
that would solve the problems that many people see as serious
problems in the country.
Instead, we are debating a bill that was brought forward by
justice minister, which, I can assure members, at least 95% of
the people absolutely object to. They absolutely object to this
kind of work. It is totally disgraceful that anyone would bring
forward legislation of this nature without first going across the
country and talking to Canadians. It is high time we, as the
Government of Canada, began to recognize that out there in our
beautiful land live people. These people make up our society and
they should be the ones to determine what kind of society we want
to live in. It is time for consultation of that nature.
Instead, we throw out a piece of legislation that is so poorly
defined and so poorly written that it will taken dozens and
dozens of court cases in the future, based on these kinds of
things, to settle.
The courts will be very busy, our lawyers will fill their pockets
and the taxpayers will cough up more of their hard earned money
to try to get some answers from the courts, which will decide
what kind of country we live in. The taxpayers will have no
opportunity whatsoever to have a say. There has been no
consultation with society. It is time the people were allowed to
lay out the kind of society they want to live in in this land.
The government has failed to do that on every count.
1720
I am pleased to see the Indian affairs minister here today. I
am waiting and wondering when the day will come when we can begin
legislative work that will help put an end to the massive
suicides by poverty stricken people on reserves across our
country. It goes on and on year after year. People do not want
to live in that kind of society.
Why are we not spending our time bringing forward legislation to
deal with the real problems facing real people in the real
Canada? These kinds of problems are being created through an
initiative of trying to bring popularity to whatever it is that
the government stands for. Lord only knows what the Liberals
stand for any more. I do not know. They talk a good talk but
they never walk the talk.
I am waiting for solid legislation from the justice department
to deal with crime and make our streets and communities safer.
Instead, I look at a piece of flawed legislation and I have not
the vaguest idea what it will mean in the future. Personally,
what it could mean frightens me. That has to end.
As one of the speakers said earlier, it is time that the people
on that side of the House got the intestinal fortitude to stand
up for the people they represent, the people who sent them to
this House, instead of standing in their place and voting for a
piece of legislation because they have to. Government policy
will not stand for them objecting to a piece of legislation
coming from that side of the House.
I admire those who have the courage to speak up for families, to
speak up for marriage, to speak up for what they feel is right
and to bring forth the views of the people they represent, the
110,000 people or more in their ridings.
Instead, here we are spending hours debating a piece of
legislation that we know the Liberals will ramrod through,
because that is how they operate. There will be no free vote.
There will be no consultation with the public. The Liberals will
do as they are told, as usual. The mighty powers of Ottawa have
spoken. Sheep should rise and vote the way they are supposed to.
Never mind what the people say in the ridings. Never mind what
the people across the country say about the kind of society they
want to live in. Members opposite write it and then they send it
to the courts and let the courts make the law.
Personally, I can assure the House that the people of Wild Rose
are absolutely sick and tired of these unelected judges across
our land making the laws for our land. They want it to end and
so do I. It will take courage. It will take some initiative
over there. Never mind the elites of our wonderful country. We
are tired of the elites. What about the people? What about the
guys who pack their lunch and go to work every day to try to make
enough money to keep sending here so we can do our work? We are
not accomplishing anything except creating more and more problems
because we do not have the courage to define what we mean by
conjugal or define what we mean by marriage in all the laws of
our land. Instead, we put forth an omnibus bill like this and we
all wonder where we are at.
This government ought to be ashamed of itself for its lack of
initiative to solve the problems facing our country. The sooner
we get rid of people like that the better off this nation will
be. I will be here to cluck.
1725
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into the
debate. I am pleased to see that some people are having a moment
of enjoyment. However, if people across the country had ever
been given the time to really study this bill, like the old poem,
there would be no joy in Mudville, there would be no joy in
Canada from coast to coast, from the rural areas to the cities.
If Canadians ever found out what this bill will do to the sacred
institution of marriage that has been preserved in history the
bill would be soundly and totally rejected.
I know I have been called a bigot for believing in this. I have
been called worse names. I am not one who hates. I was brought
up not to hate. I may see a drunk tumbling from the bar at
midnight but the only thing I hate about that is what may happen
to his children at home and eventually to him. I hate what he is
doing but I certainly do not hate.
I know members would like to see me here next week but if I went
home to my constituency and gave any indication whatsoever that I
would be supporting this bill, I probably would not make it back.
If somebody wants to give 98%, I will top that. Canadians are,
thanks to their members, totally irate about this sneaked in
legislation.
I met with some lawyers last Saturday night and asked them what
they thought of this. They said that beyond a doubt it was the
loosest piece of legislation that could ever possibly be made. It
is not so much about what is not in the bill but about the people
who are not protected in the bill.
Let us take a look at my own family. My wife's oldest sister
stayed home and looked after her parents. She never married. She
does not qualify for any benefits according to this bill. I have
a niece with four children whose husband left her almost three
years ago. According to this bill, if he was killed in an
accident or where he works, his wife and family would not be the
beneficiaries.
This government hates marriage. Let me give members an example
of what happened in a city in my riding. An accident took the
lives of six men just like that. In other words, six widows are
made just like that. This bill was never once discussed with the
provinces across Canada with regard to the workmen's compensation
legislation that every province has. These widows then became
beneficiaries of workmen's compensation for the rest of their
lives. When three of them re-married, they were cut off from
those benefits. The other three just lived with a partner.
There are so many things about this bill that will drive
Canadians crazy unless they have an opportunity to take a look at
it. I doubt if the justice department of any province was
consulted on this bill. If we can talk about 68 federal acts,
what about all the provincial acts? There will be that many
provincial acts.
So far on social issues, the pornography issue has been the
greatest. People have been phoning, writing, faxing, and so on.
Guess what is coming second and may overtake it? This bill, Bill
C-23. It will overtake it because Canadians are gradually
getting to know what this bill is about.
A word is placed in a bill and on the side of the bill there is
no definition. We see the word conjugal with no definition. We
see the word spouse and it can mean almost anything.
1730
The government ought to be ashamed of itself by putting a time
restraint on the passage of this bill. I do not know where its
constituents are. Are my constituents different from the rest?
Not on your life. They may be more intelligent, and they know
what is going on with this bill.
I was very pleased on the first free vote that there were enough
members opposite who had enough intestinal fortitude to stand and
be counted. Let us hope that before this night ends and before
this bill comes to the last and final reading that the government
has enough courage to say “We had better put a month into this.
Let us get the information out. Let us get the judicial people
into each of the provinces. Let us throw it out so that people
can really examine this bill”.
Has it got the courage to do that? Let us wait and see.
The pornography case has gone to the two lower courts and has
been upheld. The question now is, what would happen if the
judgment by the supreme court were in compliance with the two
lower courts? What would the government do then?
The bill could not be rewritten because it would be too clear to
rewrite. Would it have the courage to use the notwithstanding
clause for the protection of Canadian children?
I ask that question and I ask one favour. Would the government
consider allowing a time period of one month to put this bill out
before the public, not just the parts the government wants, but
the whole bill, and then bring it back to the House? That would
be fair for democracy, it would be fair for society and it would
give some credibility to this institution.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to touch on a few of the points raised in the debate this
afternoon: first, the question of the meaning of the word
conjugal in the legislation; second, the amendment to include the
meaning of marriage in the interpretive clause; and third,
comments made by members across the way, in particular one to the
effect that only married couples, not even common law opposite
sex couples, should receive benefits under this legislation.
With respect to the definition of conjugal, I would like to read
from a brief presented by the Canadian Bar Association to the
committee. At page 6 of the brief it reads:
Concerns have been expressed on two fronts with respect to the
use of the word “conjugal”. First, there is a concern that
benefits are being based solely on sexual activity. We note,
however, that this terminology is not new in the law. Most
legislation currently defines heterosexual common-law spouses in
terms of whether there is a “conjugal” relationship. We would
also suggest that a “conjugal” relationship has been defined by
the courts to include more than just sexual activity. Second,
some have questioned why benefits are not being granted to those
cohabiting in non-sexual, familial relationships. However, this
Bill is principally intended to remedy the government's failure
to extend rights and obligations to gay and lesbian couples
living in conjugal relationships when it extended such rights and
obligations to heterosexual couples living in similar
relationships.
Governments may wish to discuss extending rights and benefits to
non-sexual relationships, but that is an entirely different
question. The CBA has no position on whether benefits should be
extended in this manner. However, it does believe that this Bill
should pass now, with consideration being given to extended
family relationships after thorough consultations on the public
policy implications.
1735
That is exactly what is happening. The minister has referred
the question of extending benefits to persons who are in
positions of dependency to committee. The government intends to
pursue that matter as suggested in the brief of the Canadian Bar
Association, after holding consultations on the full public
policy implications.
Much has been made about the definition of conjugal, but as the
brief from the Canadian Bar Association sets out, this has been
used in the heterosexual context for quite some time and is a
system that has been functioning without any undue hardship, so
it is difficult to understand why it should be such an issue in
the context of Bill C-23.
The second point I wish to speak to deals with the government's
amendment to include in the interpretive clause the meaning of
marriage.
I understand that some members opposite have made reference to a
legal opinion obtained from Mr. David M. Brown, who is a partner
in Stikeman Elliott's civil litigation department in Toronto, who
practises commercial and corporate litigation and administrative
law. In that opinion Mr. Brown indicated that if parliament, by
introducing this amendment, was trying to make marriage, as a
matter of federal law, the lawful union of one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others, this amendment would not do that.
I submit that was never the intent of the amendment.
At the outset, in tabling the bill, the Minister of Justice made
it quite clear that Bill C-23 would have no impact and no effect
upon marriage. That was the government's position and that
remains the government's position. This amendment has been added
for greater clarity in the interpretation clause because the
issue was raised by the opposition, by others and by witnesses at
committee who felt that Bill C-23 would somehow affect marriage.
Bill C-23 would not affect marriage, and that was not its
intent. Bill C-23 also would not affect the five principles of
the Canada Health Act. However, there is no amendment in the
interpretation clause to say that Bill C-23 would not affect the
five principles of the Canada Health Act because no one at
committee, in the House or elsewhere has alleged that it would.
An amendment is being inserted by the government in the
interpretive clause of Bill C-23 to the effect that it would not
affect marriage because of the allegations made by some that it
would.
It is obvious that the common law case law has provided the
meaning of marriage. That case law remains in place, so the
state of the law has not changed. It never was the intention of
the government in introducing Bill C-23 to change it.
The third point I wish to raise deals with comments made by
members opposite that federal laws should only recognize married
couples, as they would support committed relationships that would
be the best to raise children. In other words, common law
couples of the opposite sex with children should not receive
these benefits. The obvious difficulty with that proposition is
that by extending benefits to married couples only would
effectively reintroduce the concept of illegitimacy which Bill
C-23 removes from our law.
The Government of Canada continues to emphasize the importance
of families and the importance of supporting families, most
recently in the last Speech from the Throne.
The government wishes to aid all families with children—married
couples, common law couples and lone parents—so that the
children will not be discriminated against. That is what we
should bear in mind, the well-being of the children.
1740
To suggest that children who are being raised by lone parents or
by common law parents be ignored and that benefits be given to
married couples only risks disadvantaging some children. This
would be as if the government were reintroducing the notion of
illegitimacy, recognizing only legitimate children.
The second point would be that if obligations in Bill C-23 and
other federal statutes were limited only to married couples, this
might open the government to accusations that the law actually
discriminates against married couples. In fact the Income Tax
Act was amended to include common law opposite sex couples, not
because common law couples asked for that change but because
married couples complained that they were paying more taxes than
their common law equivalents.
One example would be that it would make sense for the government
to continue to apply the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to married
couples only, as is currently the case. The effect of Bill C-23
would be that the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
would apply to all couples, common law opposite sex couples and
common law same sex couples, in addition to married couples.
At the present time any transfers of property just before
someone files for bankruptcy are reviewed to see if they were
intended to defraud creditors where someone was married, but not
where they were in a common law relationship. Bill C-23 would
have the effect of bringing equity to all of those relationships.
It is important to bear in mind that indeed the purpose of Bill
C-23 is to apply equity to all relationships, whether they are
same sex common law, opposite sex common law or married couples.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since the member brought forth some very interesting things which
are of great importance, I wonder whether we could have unanimous
consent for five minutes to ask questions and make comments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for five
minutes of questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to members debate this subject for a
good part of the day. What I have heard raises a concern over
the disagreement in opinion.
For some reason, if a member stands in the House to disagree
with a piece of legislation, members on the other side will call
the member all kinds of things. I heard the word “bigot” used
today. I have heard a number of others words. It seems that
this is the way the government works, that if a member is in
disagreement with any piece of legislation that comes to the
House the member will be labelled. It has been a tactic in
Canada for far too many years.
People outside the House who have concerns about legislation are
to the point where even they are afraid to stand in public to
voice their concerns because they are afraid of being labelled.
I want the House to know and I want the people of Canada who are
listening to this debate to know that there are members on this
side of the House who will not be intimidated by that tactic. We
will say what has to be said. We will say it on behalf of our
constituents. No amount of name calling and no amount of
labelling will stop us. They can keep on calling us what they
want to call us. It will not stop us.
Let us look at Bill C-23. Sixty-eight federal statutes are to
be amended.
What a glorious day this is for the lawyers of the country. What
a glorious day the government has provided once again for its
friends in the legal community. What a glorious day of trying to
interpret exactly what the bill means. It is a heyday for them.
1745
The government is too afraid to define marriage. It is a shame.
Marriage is one of the main cornerstones of society. Yet the
government refuses to define it. It refuses to define conjugal.
Yet it is willing to put this piece of garbage into legislation
and force it upon the people of the country, to force it down
their throats whether or not they like it.
Let us have a look at the history of the government with regard
to some of these issues. The Liberals are the ones who stand
there with their hands over their hearts and say they have
consulted with the people, with the provinces, and this is what
they have come up with.
I am here to say that there was no consulting. Nobody came into
my constituency or any other constituency that I know of. Nobody
from the government went to the provinces and talked to them
about it. They just decided to do that and since they decided to
do it the public has become aware.
There has been mention in the House time and time again of the
concern we hear back from our constituents on this piece of
legislation. Bill C-23, in the constituency of
Okanagan—Shuswap, has now overtaken Bill C-68, the firearms
legislation. It has overtaken child pornography in the concerns
of the people of the Okanagan—Shuswap area.
There is concern out there. We are not getting hundreds of
signatures or hundreds of letters. We are getting thousands of
letters, faxes, e-mail, petitions and phone calls from the people
who pay our wages.
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain wanted to know if
maybe his constituents were confused because he was being
inundated with calls and letters with regard to this piece of
legislation. I want to assure him that his constituents are not
confused, not one bit.
Every other member in the House, even those on the other side
who will vote in favour of the bill, are getting the same from
their constituents. Yet they will refuse to stand on behalf of
their constituents because they will have to go against their
party whip. That is a shame for a country that is supposed to be
called a democracy. We have not seen democracy in this country
since the second world war, and that is a shame.
Let us look at the poorly written, poorly drafted piece of
legislation which the minister has decided to put forward. It is
the first piece of legislation, I heard today, that was brought
forward by the minister since she has been here. I cannot
believe it. It is something that will be fought over in courts
for centuries to come if it is accepted. Members over there know
quite well that this is will happen.
The bill is not even based on dependency and we are supposed to
be looking at dependency. It is based on something called
conjugal relationships, not whether or not the person is in need
of assistance but his or her sexual habits. It does not make any
sense. It makes no sense to anybody.
1750
What about caregivers, people who give up their jobs to stay
home and help their parents? They think they owe a debt to not
only their parents but to society to help them through their
troubled years. That is not addressed. They refuse to address
it. I do not understand it. I do not know if it is something
that happens when we get to the great hallowed halls of this
institution.
An hon. member: It didn't happen to you.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: No, it did not happen to me and I can
tell the House why. When the government tells me how good
something is, I study it and then I think maybe I should hit my
head against the wall to make sure I am reading it right. If it
still concerns me I go out and talk to the public about it, and
nine times out of ten the public will set me straight. I am not
ashamed to say that I have gone back to my constituents who have
said that maybe I have been down in Ottawa a bit too long. They
tell me what they want.
It is about time all members of the House start to realize that
their job is to bring the concerns of their constituents to the
House, not to take from the House and tell constituents what they
will get, shut up and like it. It is time we all started to
learn that.
An hon. member on the other side mentioned the Speech from the
Throne. We can go through any Speech from the Throne and discard
it in the wastebasket like we have done for years. What is said
at that moment means absolutely nothing. It is all for show. We
all know it and the people of Canada know it. It has never been
anything more than that to the government. Its object is to jam
its agenda down our throats whether or not we like it. Those who
do not like it will be branded, labelled and shut up one way or
another until they are too afraid to stand up and disagree. That
is the agenda of the government.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to
to debate government Bill C-23. For the benefit of those who are
watching the debate and for the benefit of the Liberals, in this
bill the government is giving out marriage-like benefits while
failing to effectively define marriage. A vast majority of
Canadians are opposed to it.
The official opposition is the only party in the House opposed
to the bill and we have the support of the public right across
this great nation. The constituents of Surrey Central are
calling me every day opposing the bill. I have not received more
calls, letters or e-mail messages than I have received on this
particular important issue. My constituents are urging the
Canadian Alliance to remain firm as a pro-family party. They are
characterizing the Liberals as an anti-family party.
What is it that my constituents are opposing? The vast majority
supports families. We support marriage as a union between a man
and a woman to the exclusion of all other relationships. I will
talk about the definition of marriage for a moment. The Liberals
say they have included the definition of marriage in the justice
minister's so-called marriage amendment.
However that amendment is not included in the 68 federal statutes
affected by the bill. If this definition of marriage is good
enough to put in the preamble of Bill C-23, why is it not good
enough for all the statutes it changes?
1755
An hon. member: Because they do not really believe in it.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Exactly. The Minister of Justice
contradicts statements by other cabinet ministers. One example
was the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and responsible
for the Status of Women when speaking about who qualifies for
benefits under Bill C-23.
Let me talk for a moment about the definition of conjugal
relationships. Cabinet ministers appearing as witnesses before
the committee that just finished with the bill disagreed on the
definition of conjugal relationships. That definition is key to
the operation of the bill. One minister says that sexual
activity is involved in a conjugal relationship. Another
minister says no, it has nothing to do with sex. It shows that
this weak, arrogant Liberal government does not know what it is
doing.
There are other problems. The justice department's testimony
before the committee talked about the ineffectiveness of the
justice minister's marriage amendment to the bill. Independent
legal opinion confirms the ineffectiveness of the justice
minister's marriage amendment. The same opinion supports the
very substantive approach of the official opposition.
Finally there is the poor legislative approach inherent in Bill
C-23. The Liberals refuse to be clear on who qualifies. How do
people know if they qualify? Will the government appoint sex
inspectors in everyone's homes?
The Liberals are driving people into court to determine if they
qualify for benefits. Many people will be launching lawsuits as
soon as the legislation is passed. This weak, arrogant Liberal
government which lacks vision is continually forcing important
decisions to be made by our courts. The elected representatives
of the people should be making those decisions, and not the
judiciary.
There are two other problems. Another aspect of the bill the
Liberals would like us to ignore is that there is no requirement
for information sharing between departments. People could claim
a conjugal relationship exists in order to qualify for benefits
but claim to be just roommates when it comes to paying
obligations. What are the ramifications of the bill as it
applies to ongoing obligations after one moves from one
relationship to a new relationship with a new partner? The bill
says nothing about that.
Let us talk about cost for a moment. Canadians have no
information about how much it will cost taxpayers. The Liberals
will tell us “Don't worry, be happy. It won't cost much”. Who
believes them? They said that they would get rid of the GST.
They also said that our military cannot have Cadillac helicopters
because they cost too much, and now it has no helicopters.
What about the experts who say that as soon as the legislation
is passed every person who lives with another person, regardless
of the true relationship, will be applying for benefits? What
about the flood of benefits taxpayers will have to pay for if the
floodgates are opened? The pundits are correct when they say
that it will cost millions and even billions of taxpayer dollars
because the bill is so weak, vague and undefined.
This weak Liberal government has no vision, not even a blurred
vision. Its lack of vision actually makes its policies
anti-family
There is nothing that the weak and ineffective Liberal
backbenchers, who are mostly from Ontario, can do about it.
1800
Let us look at the anti-family policies of the government. Let
us talk about taxes and families. The current taxation system
supported and maintained by the Liberals discriminates against
families with a stay at home parent. Those families pay 100%
more taxes than families where both parents work.
The government has been saying since 1993 in its red book, which
has proven to be a red light for meeting its promises, that it
would provide a day care program. The Canadian Alliance proposes
a 17% tax that would apply to all families equally. We have a
pro-family policy.
Let us talk about child pornography. The B.C. court and courts
in other provinces if I am correct have struck down our laws
against child pornography. The Liberals have done nothing about
this except to leave the matter to the courts to deal with. A
year and a half has gone by and we have not seen a single bit of
improvement or any initiative from the government.
We asked the government to use the constitution's
notwithstanding clause to protect our children and allow the
anti-pornography laws to remain operable until our elected
officials in the House could change the old laws. We have a
pro-family policy but the anti-family Liberals will not do that.
The people of Surrey Central are proud to have me co-sponsor and
support 19 of the many amendments the official opposition has
submitted on the bill. We have offered the government many
opportunities to do the right thing. All of my amendments use
the same words and state very clearly: “Spouse means either of a
man or a woman who has entered into a marriage”. That is the
exact text of all 19 of my amendments. My colleagues and I are
trying to amend all 68 statutes to strengthen the definition of
marriage.
In the time I have remaining I will continue to read excerpts
from e-mails and letters that I have received from my
constituents. As I said before, I have received a number of
letters and e-mails. This one is another letter of support for
family values. She says, “My husband and I are completely in
agreement with your view that marriage between a man and a woman
is the foundation of the family and the basis of our nation. I
hope you continue to use your influence to encourage MPs from the
other parties to help vote down this bill”. I received many,
many more letters.
In conclusion, all these quotes urge the government to adopt our
amendments. Remember that strong families make strong
communities and stronger communities make a stronger nation.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have been paying attention to
today's debate. Obviously emotions have been high when it comes
to this issue and the way people see marriage and families and
the future of those definitions. There is obviously much to be
said about it.
It also saddens me a bit to speak to this bill. I have seen it
is a constant trend with the government that it does not seem to
produce bills that actually bring consensus, that bring people
together or try to find solutions to hard problems. Instead it
introduces bills and types of legislation that pull the country
apart at different levels as we can imagine.
I find it very saddening being a young person in the House who
looks to legislation that hopefully will try to bring people
together and find consensus. Unfortunately, the government does
not really believe in that. It only believes in trying to promote
its own agenda, its own political groups and the power
surrounding that. That gives me a little bit of sadness in
talking about this bill.
I expressed those sentiments because I saw how passionately some
of my colleagues spoke about the definition of marriage and how
that should be upheld in the law.
When I reflect on the type of letters I have received in my
constituency office and my Ottawa office, there has definitely
been overwhelming support on strengthening the definition of
marriage and keeping it between a man and a woman.
1805
There are some people who feel, especially when we look at this
bill which is called the modernization of benefits and
obligations act, that the government has not approached the idea
of modernizing benefits in an inclusive way. Again it has done
it in a way that keeps it strictly based on conjugal
relationships. If the government were serious about modernizing
its benefits act, maybe it would have looked at some other
options of trying to deal with other relationships that are based
on dependency rather than strictly on sex. A few people have
talked about this.
I am not afraid to say that I have friends in different
communities, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or same
sex relationships. There is even no agreement in those
communities. I think about the same sex friends who are in same
sex relationships. Many of them do not want to change the
definition of marriage. They believe it is an institution that
has been created in history and is something that needs to be
continued as being a relationship between a man and a woman. They
want to try to strengthen that. There are people in the
community who feel that way. Obviously there are others who do
not agree with that. But many of my friends have told me that.
What they would like to see and what they were hoping to see in
the leadership from the government was that if it were serious
about modernizing benefits then maybe it would move away from the
requirement of conjugal relationships. I will give an example.
Since this bill has come into play, my grandfather of all
people, who follows politics quite closely and more so since I
was elected, gave me a call. He said that he would like to know a
bit more about the bill, especially because of the relationship
between he and his daughter. She has been taking care of him
over the past number of years since my grandmother passed away.
He was enquiring about benefits in that relationship. He has
been paying in for years and years and he wanted to know whether
he could transfer those benefits to his daughter when he passed
away. Unfortunately, given the way the benefits are outlined in
current legislation, those types of sharing and dependent
relationships are not allowed to look at that option.
When we look at this bill as modernizing benefits and
obligations, how has the government attempted to be more
inclusive of different relationships, if that is what it is
trying to do? Or if it really cares, how has it tried to be more
inclusive in bringing people together rather than causing this
rift and pulling people apart as we see in this debate?
It upsets me to some extent to see how the government has
refused to look at any other options on that level. I think that
the concern for many of our colleagues, which has been explained
during the course of this debate, is how caring is the
government.
As was mentioned by a few of our colleagues, the concern with
this bill which is an omnibus bill, is what effects changing the
definition of marriage will have on a number of other statutes.
My colleague who spoke prior to me and many of my other
colleagues have said that they would like to see the same
definition of marriage in the bill put at the end of the bill as
well to make sure that the definition does not compromise or
negatively affect that definition of marriage. The government
has said that it is committed to that but we have not seen any
real effort to give those people who are committed to that
definition the sense of comfort that it will be committed to that
through the whole process.
1810
As we approach the next round of the debate and as we approached
the bill going to committee, especially with the type of evidence
the official opposition has raised in the debate concerning the
effects of the various legal opinions particularly on marriage
and even benefits, hopefully the government will approach the
debate, as I have identified, in a more inclusive rather than a
restrictive manner strictly based on conjugal relationships. Many
of our members would like to see how the government will deal
with that issue and if the government is just providing lip
service or if in fact it does care about Canadians.
For people who pay into a system of benefits, those benefits
should be available to them when they are ready to claim them or
passed on to the right people. Concerning the view of equality,
as the official opposition we constantly do talk about the idea
of equality of all Canadians, all citizens and all provinces. It
is something we fundamentally believe to our core.
Unfortunately, even though the government claims to believe in
those things, in the end we do not see that extended to many
other levels especially, as I have mentioned a little today, to
the idea of dependent relationships.
A number of colleagues have been trying to advance the debate to
see whether there is any angle that can be pursued with this bill
to make us somewhat unified as we approach the modernization of
benefits. I do not know whether we will see the government take
part in that part of the debate fairly.
Some of my colleagues spoke about how it should be cherished and
how we should as a group of members of parliament, continue to
support the family as much as we can. We should continue to make
policies in this place that support families and Canadians and
which strengthen them. That is really the way a country can
remain strong. My colleague before me mentioned that.
The official opposition has put forward a number of solutions
which we hoped the government would consider in its decision
making and obviously it has not. They are ideas like a fairer
tax system not only for all Canadians but for families and the
idea of looking at ways to deal with justice issues so that we
can make families more protected and stronger. It seems to me
the government refuses to look at these sorts of options
especially when it comes to tax fairness for families. When we
look at the issue of modernizing benefits, the government is very
narrow in its focus and does not really look at ways to help
Canadians on a broad based level. That is very disheartening for
this side of the House.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to address the bill at this stage.
In the debate of these amendments we have heard that perhaps the
government members and other members in the House who support the
bill may be supporting a bill that does not get quite
sophisticated enough with the issues that are driving the
legislation. We have heard that perhaps the title, modernization
of benefits, should drive the entire legislation and should allow
us by reason only of the title itself to begin reviewing all
elements of the social safety net, the means by which the
Government of Canada with the support of taxpayers provides a
social safety net infrastructure for all Canadians.
I for one reject that suggestion. I certainly do not blame
members in opposition for constructively criticizing the
legislation before the House, but the bill was not intended to be
a review of a reconfiguration or a reworking of the entire
federal social safety net. It was not intended to do that.
The bill was intended to redress a number of items in a lot of
government legislation.
These areas are certainly referred to in the amendments and in
the bill.
1815
I want to confirm for the record and for my constituents, if
anyone thought the bill attempted to redefine marriage, that it
certainly does not. It was never intended to. In case anybody
thought the bill might in some way do something or fail to do
something that impacted on the definition of marriage in Canada,
an amendment at committee inserted into the preamble of the bill,
right up front for everybody to see, an explicit reconfirmation
of the definition of marriage in Canada.
I suppose one might have tackled this point another way. One
might have reopened every federal statute referred to in this
omnibus bill and inserted a definition. In the view of a number
of members that was not necessary because the definition of
marriage in Canadian law is already very clear.
Originally it was articulated by the courts in Canada some 125
years ago. A definition that has been around and clearly stated
for 125 years could not possibly be unclear to anyone. Along
with a resolution adopted by the House approximately a year ago,
the definition is very clear.
Mr. Grant McNally: You did not appeal the Rosenberg
decision.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Dewdney—Alouette obviously wants to speak to the bill. I hope
the Chair will recognize him in due course. Now he is going to
check with his friends.
In any event, the bill purports to be more precise and use more
modern language when dealing with the issue of benefits accorded
under various pieces of federal legislation. It also deals with
the concept of mutual obligation. In reorganizing, rewording and
reconfiguring some of these definitions, as much as it deals with
benefits the bill also deals with obligations whether they are
mutual or whether they are from the citizen and taxpayer to the
government. Therefore as long as couples, whether heterosexual
or not, fall within the definition of what the statutes hold out
as a common law couple, will come forward in dealings with the
federal government as couples. That entails obligations as well
as benefits.
Someone said that a computer calculated run through of the costs
and benefits of the legislation indicated that there was a slight
edge in favour of revenues to the government. It surprised me,
but if a computer calculates there are slightly more revenues
than costs involved, so be it. I am not sure that was the
intention but I am sure the finance minister, by the same token,
will not be too unhappy about it.
The amendments we are debating in the House are intended to
address the last vestiges of the word illegitimate. As my
colleagues know, that word has been around in common law for a
century, two centuries or more. I have not read every statute
referred to in the legislation, but I am advised that this
amending bill will remove from federal legislation every
reference to the word illegitimate as it pertains to the status
of a child.
1820
I am confident that all Canadians will accept that as an
appropriate minor technical semantic but an amendment that looks
at the status of children. No child ever had any control over
where he or she came from. They simply end up in the world as
one of us.
There are other elements in the bill which were not ever
intended to be a substantial or radical reworking of our federal
social safety net but rather an attempt to deal with charter
issues that have been raised recently and going back a number of
years. These charter issues have to do with how we describe
ourselves, what a common law couple will be and what a common law
union will be.
The number of relationships falling under that rubric has grown
in modern society. It may well continue to grow. This is
something over which we in the House do not have much control.
People are going to get together as couples and in partnerships
domestically and outside formal marriage. That is simply a
reality that exists in Canadian society. We have to take account
of it. At least it is to the benefit of children who find
themselves happily with two good parents. We do not need to be
specific about the gender. Two good parents are better than one.
Then we will want to do that for children.
I will close by indicating my support for the bill. I have
every intention of voting on the report stage amendments as they
are put to the House.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate today. There
are a couple of points I want to focus on. The government has
made an attempt to define marriage by bringing forward an
amendment. The jury is still out. Obviously there is some
question as to whether in fact it will do the job. I do not want
to focus on that. A number of my colleagues have already talked
about that part of the discussion.
However another whole area has been left out of the debate which
I find quite frustrating. I spoke to it originally, the last
time we debated Bill C-23. I believe the bill has been put
together quite hastily. Other very good options have been
brought forward that could have dealt with this point. One of my
colleagues brought forward another solution which he calls the
registered domestic partnership. I think that is something on
which we should be focusing. It is a lost opportunity.
I am frustrated the government has refused to deal with that.
When Bill C-23 was first debated there was no doubt in my mind
that the government brought it together very quickly. It was
very frustrated with what was going on with the billion dollar
boondoggle. It wanted a diversion in the House. It has not
worked. The public still is very frustrated with the
accountability and the way the government spends money. The end
result is that we now have a very poorly drafted bill which is
not well thought out. It did not look at all the options
presented by my colleague and others.
Because it was done so hastily and so quickly it will be left to
interpretation. All kinds of court cases will result. It has to
go through that process and at the end of the day it will cost
taxpayers a lot of money that is not necessary. That is my
frustration with the bill.
Why should dependency be based on a conjugal relationship? What
exactly is a conjugal relationship? If we look at the true
definition of the word, which has been pointed out by my
colleagues, it is based on a sexual relationship.
Is that how we should be putting legislation through in the
House? Should it be based on a sexual relationship before one
can receive benefits?
1825
What I find frustrating is how the House operates. A member
from an opposition party, the member for Edmonton Southwest, put
forward some very good solutions. He even offered them to the
government to use as its own solutions but they were ignored.
That is one of the frustrating aspects for me.
He basically wanted to remove the sexuality from it. Benefits
should not be based on sexuality. In any type of a relationship
there are other solutions available but the government has
specifically chosen to ignore that. I think that was the way to
go. If there are two people in a caring relationship, why should
they be excluded because they are not in a sexual or conjugal
relationship?
The government has missed an opportunity. It has come back with
an amendment I think because of public pressure. We in this
party led the charge on this by forcing the debate on the
definition of marriage in a supply day motion in June of last
year. To their credit, many government members voted in favour of
that, which I believe was the right thing to do. However, when
the government first brought Bill C-23 down it did not include
that in the bill.
Now there is some discussion again as a result of pure public
pressure. My office has received all kinds of correspondence and
calls on this. The government hastily made an amendment to the
bill. I applaud the government for at least acknowledging the
public pressure on this and including the definition of marriage
as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
However, it was done so hastily that one wonders whether the
government has changed anything and whether it will actually have
an impact on all the legislation that it needs to. I do not
think that question has been decisively answered. I think that
still needs to be done.
The government put this together at the last minute. It even
put together a last minute amendment which we are not sure will
do the job that is necessary. I personally was pleased to see
the amendment come forward but I do not know if it will do the
job.
The most frustrating part is that the government refused to look
at a perfectly good solution by the member for Edmonton
Southwest. He has been trying to put his registered domestic
partnership theory forward for two years now, which I think would
have been the best solution for everyone and something that all
members of the House could have supported. It would have
addressed the decisions by our higher courts that some of our
laws had to be dealt with.
It was frustrating to see the government hastily throw together
a bill for what I saw as political reasons. It wanted to get
something on the order paper. It needed to introduce this bill
because it was getting hammered on the billion dollar boondoggle.
We are left with a bill which, as some of my colleagues have
pointed out, will probably end up in numerous court cases and go
through the whole legal process all the way to the Supreme Court
of Canada. Of course that takes years and years to happen and
will cost millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. That should
not have to be done just because we have refused to take the time
to do it properly in the House and have refused to accept
suggestions from members of all parties in this debate.
Should the government be able to decide in five minutes that it
has a solution and then bring in a bill and that it is? We can
debate for eons in here, we can go on for months and months but
it falls upon deaf ears. The government does not accept changes.
Yes, the government did bring in an amendment on the definition
of marriage but it was purely due to public pressure. I know
pressure was out there because the phones in my office have been
and still are ringing off the hook.
I am not convinced that Bill C-23 is what we want. I wish the
the government would have followed the advice of the member for
Edmonton Southwest, who I think has put forward a very sensible
alternative to this bill.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
February 1999 the government announced a three point strategy to
protect Canadian water basins. The three components of the
strategy are: first, amendments to the International Boundary
Waters Treaty Act; second, a Canada-wide voluntary accord
negotiated with the provinces to prohibit the bulk removal of
water from all Canadian water basins; and third, a joint
Canada-U.S. reference to the International Joint Commission.
The first component, the amendments to the International
Boundary Waters Treaty Act, were introduced on November 22, 1999.
Some concerns have been expressed, including mine, about this
legislation.
As to the second component, the International Joint Commission
issued its report on March 22 on the protection of the waters of
the Great Lakes. The commission said that in order to protect
the Great Lakes' ecosystem, Canada and the U.S. should erect such
high barriers to bulk water exports that they would practically
constitute a ban. The commission also said that trade law
obligations do not prevent Canada and the U.S. from taking
measures to protect our water resources.
On March 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment what
progress he had made on the second component of the strategy,
namely, the Canada-wide voluntary accord with the provinces.
Today I would like to speak about the urgency of enacting a
federal ban on water exports.
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment attempted
to reach agreement in November on the accord for the prohibition
of bulk water removal from drainage basins. Nine ministers
endorsed the accord, but four jurisdictions have reserved their
position pending further consideration.
The provinces have been very critical of the federal
government's approach, saying that the federal ban on water
exports is necessary.
British Columbia's minister of the environment wrote, and I
quote:
Without strong federal legislation, I fear—and fully
expect—that provinces will be faced with ever-increasing
pressure from corporate interests who want water treated solely
as a commodity.
The International Joint Commission does concede in its report
that if one company were allowed to export water, others would
have to be given that right.
I should add that those corporate interests have come close
three times already to making bulk water exports a reality. When
Sun Belt Water Inc. applied for a permit to export water from
British Columbia, when the McCurdy group tried to export water
from Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland, and when the Nova Group
obtained a permit from Ontario to siphon water from Lake Superior
and ship it by tanker to Asia, public outcry led to provincial
refusal to grant such permits. As a result, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have passed
legislation to ban bulk water exports.
Now the federal government plans to make reliance on provincial
goodwill as a formal policy through a voluntary accord. It is
time the federal government acts where it has jurisdiction
because in light of our international trade agreements a
patchwork of provincial initiatives is inadequate. What we need
now is a watertight federal ban on water exports.
Once the federal government is in a leadership position, then it
can sit down to negotiate an accord with the provinces. This is
urgently needed because of increasing corporate interest in our
water resources, and also because in The Hague, Holland, on World
Water Day, delegates from 118 countries acknowledged, in a
declaration on water security, the severity of the water crisis.
In light of this development, tonight I would like to ask the
parliamentary secretary, will the federal government take
leadership, ban water exports and then actively seek agreement
with the four provinces which are still holding out?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, water is not
only a necessity of life, it is essential in many ways to the
quality of our lives.
Canadians are deeply concerned about the long term security and
quality of our freshwater. One issue that has recently captured
the attention of Canadians is the prospect of bulk water removals
and export from Canadian watersheds.
The federal government responded to these concerns in February
1999 with a three part strategy to prohibit bulk water removal
from major watersheds.
The strategy recognizes that the most effective and certain way
to protect Canada's waters is to take an environmental approach.
Our goal is to shut off the tap at the source, not at the border.
1835
I will take a moment to report on the progress which has been
made by all governments and the International Joint Commission in
advancing this strategy.
Last November the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled Bill C-15,
an act to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to
prohibit bulk water removals from boundary waters, principally
the Great Lakes. This is a key federal contribution to the
protection of Canada's waters under the Canada-wide accord.
A second element of the strategy was a giant Canada-U.S. study
by the IJC to examine water use in the Great Lakes basin. On
March 15 the IJC presented its final report to the Canadian and
U.S. governments on the protection of the waters of the Great
Lakes.
The report is consistent and reinforces the federal strategy to
prohibit bulk water removals, including recognition of the
environmental basis for action, the need for intergovernmental
co-operation in protecting waters, and the trade consistency of
the federal approach.
The IJC concluded that international trade law does not prevent
Canada and the U.S. from taking measures to protect their water
resources and preserve the integrity of the Great Lakes basin.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about disturbing reports coming
out of Newfoundland from DFO scientists about crab stocks, how
according to scientific reports from the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans the crab stocks appear to be on the low end. They
appear to be declining in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is the reason I asked the question. That is a very
disturbing report to hear from the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans because of the similar reports we heard in the eighties
and early nineties on cod stocks.
It was the responsibility of prior Conservative governments and
it is the responsibility of the current Liberal governments to
manage and to preserve the fish and the fish habitat.
Unfortunately the record has been quite shameful over the years.
The five species of west coast salmon are in trouble. Atlantic
salmon on the east coast are in trouble. Cod stocks on the east
coast are in trouble. It was very disturbing to hear about the
shellfish, from which we could gather great revenues if harvested
properly and sustainably, which could provide economic
opportunities for people in the outports.
My colleague from Labrador is a very good friend of mine and I
am sure he is also very concerned about the depleting fish
stocks.
We have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the west coast
who generally shows great concern toward the fisheries. He has
stood in the House time and again and said that the precautionary
principle would be the guiding principle of all decisions made by
fisheries and oceans.
I could not help but notice the other day when the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans announced a 10,000 tonne quota cut on the
cod in 3Ps. That was just announced the other day. The reason
for that follows very disturbing reports that the cod in that
area are not coming back.
Premier Tobin of Newfoundland, who is a former minister of
fisheries and oceans, even stated that in Newfoundland and
Labrador they are catching the crab far too rapidly.
When I posed a question to the minister about what would be done
to preserve the precious, fragile crab stocks off Newfoundland,
he said that prior to the Liberals forming the government in 1993
fisheries brought in $243 million to the province of Newfoundland
and Labrador. Now it is $543 million.
Liberal times are good times. That was exactly his answer. He
did not answer the question as to what the government would do to
preserve the fish stocks.
1840
My question is: Will the Canadian taxpayer be paying for the
hangover from the Liberal good-time party if crab stocks
decrease?
I do not have the scientific expertise to say that they are
decreasing, but DFO scientists, who have been ignored repeatedly
over the years, have the expertise. One of the classic examples
of DFO officials being ignored was when Dr. Hutchings and Dr.
Myers wrote a scathing report on how the DFO treats its own
scientists. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans knows about that report. These very
prominent scientists and fish biologists left the DFO in disgust
because their recommendations and their scientific advice was
ignored repeatedly by the fisheries ministers. We had
dangerously low levels of cod and salmon on both coasts.
The fear which all of us have in the House and everywhere across
the country will be that Canadian people will not accept the
TAGS-3 program. They will not accept the ability—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent
assessment of Newfoundland snow crab concluded that the stock has
declined. Research surveys indicate that the biomass of
commercial size crab declined by 45% from the fall of 1998 to the
fall of 1999, and that the biomass of smaller crab, which will
enter the fishery in 2000, also declined.
We are taking these warning signs very seriously. We should not
try to draw simple parallels between the collapse of the cod
stocks and the current situation with crab. The biology of crab
and the nature of the fishery are very different from those of
cod and other fin fish. For example, the crab fishery targets
only larger males, using traps designed to allow smaller males
and all females to escape. All stocks are inherently variable,
with shellfish stocks generally displaying greater variability.
Snow crab resources go through natural periods of abundance and
decline. Crab stocks were at record high levels through the
1990s, and the department has given warnings on many occasions
that decline should be expected when environmental conditions
change.
In all of our public consultations, particularly at the snow
crab management seminar held in Newfoundland in 1999, we have
advised the industry that the high level of abundance seen in
recent years would not be sustained due to the natural
fluctuation of the stock.
Conservation of the snow crab resource is the priority. The
management of this fishery in 2000 will take full account of the
current status of the resource to ensure that conservation is not
jeopardized.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.43 p.m.)