36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 83
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| SPECIES AT RISK ACT
|
| Bill C-33. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. David Anderson |
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-474. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1010
| ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
|
| Bill C-475. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Rights of the Unborn
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1015
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Third reading
|
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1100
1105
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1150
1155
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1200
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1205
1210
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1215
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1240
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1245
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1250
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1255
1300
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1305
1310
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1315
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1320
1325
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1330
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1335
1340
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1345
| Mr. John Bryden |
1350
1355
| REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
|
| The Speaker |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| FIREFIGHTERS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
1400
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| CANADA CUSTOMS
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1405
| HONDA INSIGHT
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| A VISION FOR CANADA
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| CANADA BOOK DAY
|
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
| SAYISI DENE
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1410
| IRAN
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1415
| IRAN
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| REVENUE CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1420
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1425
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1430
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1440
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1445
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SOLICITOR GENERAL
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1450
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TREASURY BOARD
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1455
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1500
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Third reading
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1505
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1510
1515
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1520
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1525
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1530
1535
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1540
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1545
1550
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1555
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1600
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1605
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1610
1615
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1620
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1625
1630
1635
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1640
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. John Bryden |
1700
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1710
1715
1750
(Division 1276)
| Amendment negatived
|
1800
(Division 1277)
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1805
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1810
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1815
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1820
| Amendment
|
1825
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1830
1835
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1840
1845
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1850
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1855
1900
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1905
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1910
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Iran
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1915
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 83
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
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 Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to 16
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the fourth report of
the Standing Committee on Industry entitled “Productivity and
Innovation: A Competitive and Prosperous Canada”.
The Standing Committee on Industry met with over 70 witnesses to
discuss productivity, innovation and competitiveness. I would
like to thank everyone who participated in our extensive hearings
and for sharing their insights with us. I am confident that the
public will agree that this report reflects both their concerns
and common Canadian values and priorities in our ever evolving
and productive economy.
On behalf of the committee I would also like to thank our clerk
Richard Rumas, our researchers Daniel Shaw and Daniel Brassard
and the interpreters and parliamentary staff for their
assistance.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the standing
committee's report on productivity and innovation.
I suggest that the committee did a good job in providing a 30
year history of the decline in productivity and documenting our
current situation in terms of our productivity fall. However it
failed to identify the underlying reasons for Canada's
deteriorating productivity.
The official opposition believes that the role played by public
policy during this period is a significant factor that needed to
be examined. We suggest that the fundamental shift in government
policy in the late 1960s and 1970s created the conditions that
led to Canada's decline in productivity and therefore we offered
a dissenting opinion to that effect.
* * *
SPECIES AT RISK ACT
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act respecting the
protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-474, an act to amend the
Income Tax Act (percentage of gifts that may be deducted from
tax).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce in the House
today my private member's bill to amend the Income Tax Act. It
pertains specifically to the percentage of gifts that may be
deducted from tax.
In federal law registered charities do not receive equal
treatment with federal political parties. The majority of
Canadians contribute an average of $239 annually. If those
dollars go to charities, the donors receive a reduced rate of tax
credit compared to federal political parties. This bill is about
taking away political advantage for political donations.
To date I have received over 30,000 signatures in support of
this and a strong contingent of support from thousands of
charitable organizations across Canada. I urge all members to
consider supporting this very worthy piece of legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
ENDANGERED SPECIES SANCTUARIES ACT
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act
respecting the creation of sanctuaries for endangered species of
wildlife.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the situation right now with respect to
endangered species in Canada is deplorable. More than 300
endangered species exist in our country but there has been a
decline in habitat which is critically important for the
existence of these species for future generations.
This bill provides for the species to be defined by a scientific
group under the auspices of COSEWIC. It provides for habitat
protection by obligating the federal government to engage in
negotiations with private land owners and provinces. In the case
that negotiations are unable to proceed further, the land can be
taken over as a sanctuary, as long as the groups are compensated
for the land at fair market value. Finally, it provides that
people who own lands that contain sensitive habitats for species
can receive benefits under the Income Tax Act.
This bill will go a long way in protecting our endangered
species for future generations to enjoy.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table in the House today a petition signed by
approximately 700 Canadians, most of them from my riding but some
from other parts of the country.
The petitioners remind the government of its commitment to work
with all parliamentarians to eliminate child poverty by the year
2000. They express great concern about the dramatic and alarming
increase in child poverty and call upon the government to fulfil
that promise by introducing a multi-year plan to eliminate child
poverty in the country.
BILL C-23
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition which like other
petitions is on behalf of thousands and thousands of Canadians.
The petitioners indicate that there has been empirical evidence
of the value of marriage as a cornerstone of public policy which
produces tangible public benefits and that parliament has
reaffirmed that marriage is and should remain the union of one
man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. However, the
government has brought forth Bill C-23 which extends
marriage-like benefits to same sex couples. Therefore the
petitioners pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 before it is
passed today.
RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition from people of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.
The petitioners pray that parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the criminal code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn
human beings.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to table a
petition bearing 128 signatures. The petitioners call upon
parliament to move quickly to pass legislation requiring the
labelling of all foods that are genetically modified, in whole
or in part.
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from over 400
Canadians mostly from the province of Alberta.
The petitioners are asking and demanding that the Prime Minister
keep his promise regarding ministerial accountability. They are
demanding the resignation of the Minister of Human Resources
Development and are asking the auditor general to oversee a full
and independent inquiry into HRDC management and accounting
practices.
1015
BILL C-23
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I also wish to present a petition. These petitioners
are joining with about 4,000 petitioners as of a week ago. We
have had petitions every day on this particular topic.
They call upon parliament to withdraw Bill C-23 to affirm the
opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure
that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present today on two different
subjects. The first petition is three separate ones.
The petitioners, who are my constituents, are calling for
parliament to withdraw Bill C-23. They say that a bill which
fails to define marriage in legislation as a union of one man and
woman, a definition which was affirmed by the House on June 8,
1999, is an inappropriate intrusion into the personal lives of
Canadians and extends benefits only to a relationship of a sexual
nature. They would like the bill withdrawn.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present the another petition, pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
These petitioners feel that Canadians are overtaxed. They are
demanding that the federal government account for the gross
mismanagement of their tax dollars in the HRDC department. They
are also requesting the immediate resignation of the HRDC
minister and that the auditor general conduct a full and
independent inquiry into HRDC management and accounting
practices.
BILL C-23
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in parliament to present a
petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from New Brunswick,
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta.
Once again they join with thousands of other Canadians across
the country in asking that the government withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I too have the privilege of standing in the House today to
present a petition.
This one is interesting because in this one package we have
petitioners from New Brunswick, Quebec, the Ottawa region,
Manitoba and Calgary. They are from right across the country.
These petitioners, as some of the others who have already
presented petitions, are asking and urging parliament to withdraw
Bill C-23. It goes against everything they believe in.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise as well to table about 100 signatures from
Alberta and Ontario objecting to Bill C-23, adding to the tens of
thousands of others that have been tabled which ask that the
government withdraw the legislation and protect the institution
of marriage.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
Hon. Hedy Fry (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-23, an act to
modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and
obligations, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill C-23, the
modernization of benefits and obligations act.
First let me thank my colleagues, the members of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for their excellent work.
I would also like to thank all the witnesses, the individuals and
organizations that took the time to thoughtfully consider the
bill and to either appear before the committee or to send in a
brief on Bill C-23. Their work is very important in this process
and I want to thank them for their time and helpful
contributions.
Bill C-23 will amend 68 statutes to ensure that committed common
law couples of the opposite sex and the same sex receive equal
treatment under the law with regard to benefits and obligations.
As the Minister of Justice has repeatedly said, the legislation
is about tolerance and fairness.
1020
Through the bill we are achieving respect for the fundamental
values inherent in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government and the majority of Canadians believe that all
common law couples in committed relationships should be treated
in the same way. Bill C-23 reflects this reality.
Let me take a minute to review some of the more complex issues
and misinformation that have arisen surrounding Bill C-23. Some
members of the House and some witnesses before the standing
committee have suggested that Bill C-23 does not go far enough
and that the benefits and obligations should be extended not to
just same sex couples but to all people in relationships of
dependency. I would stress, however, that Bill C-23 does not
preclude discussion which has already started on whether or how
to acknowledge the nature and reality of the many types of
dependent relationships.
The government agrees that this is an important issue which
deserves further attention. It is for this reason that the
Minister of Justice has already announced that the issue will be
referred to a parliamentary subcommittee.
The mandate of the parliamentary subcommittee will be to examine
four broad categories of questions. First, should the Government
of Canada reconsider the basis on which benefits and obligations
are determined at present? Second, what overall policy
objectives for Canadian society should benefits and obligations
support? Third, if either economic dependency or economic
emotional interdependency is the most appropriate basis on which
to distribute benefits and impose obligations on Canadian
society, how would it be defined and measured? Fourth, should
all benefits and obligations be distributed on this basis or only
some where appropriate?
These questions are highly conceptual and represent the first
stage of this study which will set the framework and principles
on which further study of the issue of dependency will be based.
As was mentioned in the committee hearings, the Law Commission
of Canada has been studying the issue of dependency and
interdependency for some time and expects to release a public
issues paper on these questions in the early summer of this year.
Work on these broader, important questions is real and is
progressing.
The broader issue of dependency is complex and separate from the
issue dealt with in Bill C-23. I realize that many are
frustrated with what they see as further delay on this related
but separate question. However the government firmly believes
that it is premature and irresponsible to extend benefits and,
more particularly, to impose obligations on these broader
dependent relationships without careful consideration of all the
implications for society.
Although some federal statutes already extend benefits and
obligations to people in dependent relationships, we need to know
more. We need to know about the financial cost, any possible
downsides for elderly and disabled individuals and whether
Canadians would even be prepared to take on legal obligations for
their relatives and others before we could determine whether it
would be appropriate to include such relationships in all laws.
A number of adult Canadians currently reside with elderly
parents, siblings or other relatives. Extending benefits and
obligations to people involved in all these forms of
relationships would have far-reaching consequences for
individuals and society as a whole. While benefits which reflect
dependency would likely be welcomed, it is unclear whether the
accompanying legal obligations should be imposed on individuals
or those relatives with whom they reside.
For example, eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement
under the Old Age Security Act is determined on the basis of
combining the income of both persons, which might result in
reducing benefits for some elderly persons who live with adult
children or other relatives. As another example, if an adult
lives with his or her elderly parent for many years and then
leaves to marry, this extension might result in a situation where
the Canada pension plan credit would be split between the parent
and the child as it would now following a divorce.
Premature changes may have unexpected results. Government must
be careful and responsible with any changes so that the system
encourages rather than discourages people taking care of each
other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes would
not impose obligations which accidentally act as barriers to
people supporting each other.
While the more complex issues surrounding the broader questions
of dependent relationships need to be worked out, this work
cannot be allowed to delay further the issues dealt with in Bill
C-23. The Law Commission of Canada stated before the committee:
However much we believe 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”.
1025
Members opposite have also claimed that Bill C-23 will destroy
the institution of marriage or result in adoption by same sex
couples. The Minister of Justice has repeatedly stated that the
bill is not about marriage. It is about equal treatment under
federal law for all common law couples, whether of the opposite
sex or the same sex.
Nevertheless, the government has been responsive to the concerns
of many Canadians, including some in my riding who needed
reassurance that the fundamental institution of marriage would
not be altered in any way by the bill. I proposed an amendment
at committee stage to give this reassurance to Canadians.
Subclause 1.1 of Bill C-23 now states:
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.
This answers the many questions which have been presented here
today in the petitions. Although some have claimed this does not
have any legal effect, I and others on this side disagree. The
amendment to the bill is a clear statement of the intention of
the government that the legal meaning of marriage remain the same
as it always has been in the history of Canada.
With regard to the claims that the bill will result in adoption
by same sex partners, I wish to point out again that adoption is
decided under the laws of the provinces. It is provincial law.
The references to adoption in Bill C-23 are there to ensure that
children adopted in accordance with provincial law will be
included in federal law.
This is one aspect of Bill C-23 which has not received much
attention in the debates but which I believe is important. Bill
C-23 amends several federal statutes to ensure that children are
not discriminated against, both by including references to
adopted children in those few statutes which do not already do so
and by removing the last remaining reference to illegitimacy to
ensure that all children are included in the federal law.
There has also been a series of conflicting remarks from the
other side: first, that the government is only putting the bill
forward because the courts have forced the government's hand over
the objections of Canadians and, second, that the bill is
unnecessary as it goes beyond what the Supreme Court of Canada
has required. Let me respond by saying that the government
brought forward the bill at this time because it is the right
thing to do.
Governments have a duty to represent the interests of all its
citizens whether they belong to the mainstream or, perhaps even
more important, when they represent a minority group. I am
pleased to represent a political party which believes as one of
its central policies that governments have a duty to safeguard
the interests of both the majority and the minorities which make
up the face of Canada.
In May 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling in M. v H.
said that governments could not continue to discriminate against
same sex common law couples by denying them the benefits and
obligations granted to opposite sex common law couples. All
unmarried common law couples, both opposite sex and same sex,
must have access to the same benefits and obligations.
However, although the decision of the supreme court set out the
road map by identifying that same sex common law couples must be
included, which is its proper role under the constitution, it
remains up to parliament to decide how the law must be changed to
provide that equal treatment. That is why the approach in Bill
C-23 is both a responsible and a balanced one which deliberately
maintains a clear legal distinction between married and common
law relationships.
What the courts have told us and what the bill addresses is that
common law relationships should be given equal treatment in the
law, whether they are opposite sex common law couples or same sex
common law couples. The bill uses clear language to maintain the
term spouse for married couples and to introduce the new term
common law partner for both opposite sex and same sex unmarried
relationships. By doing so it preserves the legal distinction
between married relationships and unmarried conjugal
relationships.
In the absence of a legislative action such as the bill the
courts will continue to address cases in a piecemeal fashion,
focusing on the very narrow issues brought before them. The
status quo is not an option. It promises confusion, unfairness,
and continuing and costly litigation. Equally important, it runs
the unacceptable risk of making the courts the arbiters of social
policy.
I have on final issue. The proposed amendments to the Judges
Act contained in Bill C-23 were referred to the Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission for consideration and
recommendation pursuant to the Judges Act.
I am pleased to advise that this independent and constitutionally
mandated commission has now informed the government that it
supports the Judges Act amendments which are consistent with the
amendments to the other statutes included in the bill.
1030
In its reporting letter, which was tabled in the House on March
30, the commission observed that the proposed amendments to the
Judges Act represent an appropriate response to the issues
surrounding survivor annuity benefits. It is noted in particular
that the apportionment rules provide a satisfactory basis for
resolving any conflicts in those few instances where there may be
more than one survivor, a legally married separated spouse and
subsequent common law partner.
Perhaps most significant is the commission's observation that
the proposed amendments are important and timely to ensure
compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
its recommendations that the amendments be passed without delay.
We are grateful to the commission for its careful consideration
of these issues and for the timely delivery of its report.
In conclusion, the bill is about equality and respect. Bill
C-23 provides a responsible and balanced approach to correct
longstanding discrimination against same sex couples and to
ensure equal treatment for common law couples of the same sex and
opposite sex while preserving the fundamental importance of
marriage.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join in the debate on third reading of
Bill C-23.
I have had the opportunity, as the bill has moved through the
House and through committee, to speak to the bill four times. I
do not think it would serve the House or yourself, Mr. Speaker,
to go over too much of the ground that has already been covered
at some length.
Yesterday's Hansard shows in some detail the 10 very
strong reasons why the official opposition felt, and made strong
arguments in fact, that Bill C-23 should be withdrawn. We laid
that out for the House and we put forward amendments to improve
the bill. Unfortunately last night, with the exception of a few
on the other side, those amendments to improve the bill were
jettisoned.
I noticed that the member opposite talked about the definition
of marriage that is in Bill C-23 which has been added due to
public pressure by the justice minister. Yes, we are thankful
that that amendment was put in there.
What troubles us is that the definition of common law partners,
which this bill now defines as any two people, same sex or
otherwise, who live together for one year in a conjugal
relationship, is continually defined in every statute throughout
Bill C-23 repeatedly. Yet, to place a definition of marriage and
spouse in those same statutes is something the Liberals have
refused to do. They put it at the front end of a bill where it
will not appear in any statute anywhere. When someone pulls the
Income Tax Act off the shelf or the Pension Beneficiaries Act or
any of these acts, there is no definition of marriage there, but
there definitely is a definition of common law partners.
In our amendments we asked that the government actually make
this definition of marriage substantive and have legal effect
because there are court cases coming that will challenge the
definition of marriage. It is our position that if we are going
to put it in law, let us put it in law. That was our argument,
to put it right in the statutes.
Unfortunately, the Liberals have elected to leave it out of the
statutes and put it in a place whereby, in the expert legal
opinion of Mr. David Brown, a lawyer from Toronto with the firm
of Stikeman Elliott who reviewed legal precedents and textbooks
on this very matter, the way the government did it would have
little to no legal effect when these cases come forward as
opposed to the approach that the Canadian Alliance put forward,
which would substantively place the definition of marriage in
Canadian law.
Why is that so important? It is important because it would send
a clear signal to the courts on behalf of the Canadian people
that marriage should remain the union of a man and a woman to the
exclusion of all other definitions.
1035
It is troubling that the government would put forward an
amendment to appease the concerns of Canadians. We have heard
here in this House from the petitions, thousands of them now,
probably over the 10,000 mark that have come forward in a short
period of time on this bill. It is of concern to us that the
government would attempt to appease those concerned Canadians
with an amendment to Bill C-23 that really is for show only. As
the member for Scarborough East referred to it, the Liberal
member in fact, it is a ghost amendment, a ghost bill which is
going to float out there but will not have any real effect.
Canadians are thinking that it will, but they have been misled by
this Liberal government.
It would have been more sincere for the government to actually
have adopted the amendments that the Canadian Alliance put
forward to have the definition of marriage put in the statutes.
It is troubling that it has misled the Canadian people and those
petitioners to think that something substantive has been done
when in fact it has not.
There is a number of significant problems with this bill that
are going to cause it to be very troublesome in its
implementation and to which I have made reference before. One of
the key areas is this term that the government has added in the
definition of common law partners. In fact, it is the criterion
for qualifying for all these benefits that we currently apply to
marriage and family. The single criterion for same sex couples
now is that they live in a conjugal relationship.
Well, it is a term. There are all kinds of terms in legislation
but, normally, when that occurs, there is some definition of the
term so that it is made clear to those looking at the statutes or
the legislation passed by this House who qualifies or who does
not.
We have repeatedly asked for a definition to be included in Bill
C-23. The government has refused to do that. In committee and
otherwise, it has answered by saying the courts know what a
conjugal relationship is. What kind of answer is that? That
answer says that the courtroom is going to be the determining
place for people to to get a ruling whether or not they actually
are in a relationship that qualifies for all these benefits.
Just think how inappropriate that is. Here we have two
individuals who are living together, assuming they are in a
conjugal relationship and later finding out that they are not or
vice versa, assuming they are not and later finding out that they
are. The confusion, the court cases, the challenges, what
happens to the benefits, the obligations upon death, all these
questions are left unclear by this piece of legislation.
What troubles me the most is that members opposite, good
members, members that have children of their own and families, or
that are married, know that this is a fundamental flaw in this
bill. They know it. Yet, last night we saw that on the report
stage amendments, in spite of knowing that there are these
fundamental weaknesses with this bill, the members are going to
follow the edict of the Prime Minister and the cabinet and vote
for a bill that is so tragically flawed. That is what troubles
me more, that good men and women would not stand up for what they
know is right, stand against what they know is wrong and fulfill
the obligations they made to their constituents a few years ago
when they were elected to this House.
It is not the first time we have seen the Liberal government
move in a direction that is directed to them by either the courts
or lobby groups. There has been a litany of decisions that have
been made by this Liberal government that have impacted the
Canadian family in a detrimental way. I cannot use any other
word, except that the policies of the Liberal government are
actually working against the Canadian family.
Let me review some of those. I think it is in keeping with Bill
C-23 because it points out that there is a trend here that is
consistent in this current Liberal government.
1040
Let us take, for example, a statement made in the House a year
or so ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Finance that parents who stay at home do not work as hard as
those in the workplace. That caused a big kerfuffle across the
nation. Families from across the nation and those who care for
children at home spoke out. There were retractions resulting in
all kinds of activity, and then questions about that.
In fact, because of the public pressure and because of motions
that were brought forward by the Canadian Alliance that addressed
the inequity and the tax treatment of stay at home parents or
single income families, the finance minister was forced to launch
a special committee to look at tax fairness.
The special committee sat for a number of months, had witnesses
appear, as is the normal committee process, and produced a report
that said there were some fundamental inequities in the way that
tax treatment is applied to families that actually made it more
difficult for parents to spend time with their children. It
actually provided incentives for just the opposite, for parents
to put their children in institutionalized care and enter into
the workplace. It made recommendations that that should change.
A few weeks ago we saw the budget. The recommendations in that
report were not included. We went through the whole report
process. We went through recommendations from the special
committee to address the anti-family tax policies of the
Liberals. There were some good recommendations, but nothing was
implemented.
Let us talk about another situation. This issue is by far the
number one issue for petitions that the House has seen in the
whole 36th Parliament, far greater than any other issue that has
hit the floor of the House. Many people who have never been
involved in the political process were motivated to get involved
on the one issue. We are approaching over half a million
signatures. I think we may see one million on this before it is
over. Petitions are still coming in to my office in stacks.
People listening may recognize the fact that this was the
grievous ruling of a court in B.C. that struck down the
illegality of possession of child pornography. Just the term
turns your stomach. Petitioners across the country are crying
out to have this reversed and the law upheld to make it illegal
to possess this material.
The Canadian Alliance brought a motion to the floor of the House
which was initially supported by some 70 members opposite. It
asked the government to use the notwithstanding clause to uphold
the law and not let the court strike down a law that protected
children and made this kind of grievous material illegal.
Unfortunately, only four of the members opposite stuck to their
convictions. The rest reneged on their commitment and voted with
the whip vote pressured on them by the Prime Minister. The
motion we put forward to uphold the law to protect children was
struck down again by the Liberals. They deferred it and said
“Let us leave this to the courts. We will appeal it. It will
all be solved in a month or two”.
Do members know how long ago that was? It is almost a year and
a half since the court struck down the law that made the
possession of child pornography illegal in B.C. What has
happened in that time? Cases have been delayed. Prosecutions
have not proceeded. The B.C. case is being referenced in other
provinces and has impacted prosecutions on this issue. It is a
year and a half later and still nothing has been resolved.
We had the tool in the House to resolve that. We had the tool
in the notwithstanding clause. It is part of the charter, not
separate. It is there to be used. But, rather than use a tool
that they had, a legal, legislative, charter tool, they chose not
to do it, to defer to the courts, to put children at risk and
make this grievous material legal.
That is not the end. Bill C-23 is part of a consistent trend we
see from the Liberal government.
Here is another one.
1045
I sat on a joint Senate and Commons committee that was struck
after great public pressure and concern about the issue of family
law, the divorce act and custody and access because the approach
taken by the courts and the guidelines put in place by the
Liberal government are not working. They are not working for
people when it comes to issues of custody, access and support
when there is marital breakdown.
Largely through the pressure of one senator in particular the
committee was launched and I had the privilege of sitting on it.
The government spent about $600,000 to finance the committee.
We travelled the country and heard from Canadians from coast to
coast. They shared painful stories about how their relationships
had broken down and they had been driven into the courtrooms.
Sometimes it seemed as if the legal profession had actually made
the situation worse. Both sides in some disputes were spending
all their money and going into debt trying to resolve their
family conflicts. Children were caught in the middle. Sometimes
the testimony was painful. A couple of times the interpreters
who travelled with us had to leave the interpretation booth
because they were in tears. They could not interpret any more.
Lots of money was spent and lots of testimony was heard. It was
a year of hard work by a large committee. The final result was a
report with some good and implementable recommendations, many
with which the official opposition agreed. Our dissenting report
was very short.
What was the response of the Liberal government when it got the
report? Was it going to implement the report? Was it a priority
for the government? The response of the justice minister of the
day was to say the government wanted to look at it further and it
would probably take another three years before any action was
taken. That tells Canadians it is not a priority to solve that
issue.
With Bill C-23 what is the government communicating to Canadians
as its number one priority? Bill C-23 has seen closure at second
reading after four hours of debate. It had three and a half days
in committee and many people who wanted to appear before the
committee were excluded. There is closure at third reading now.
The bill is being been rushed through the House and it affects 68
statutes and fundamentally changes some of our social norms and
structures.
The government did not act on the custody and access report and
it still has not. I still get letters from people who are
concerned about when they will see family law reform that was
recommended in the report generated by the joint Senate and
Commons committee on custody and access. What can I tell them? I
tell them to continue to write to the justice minister and let
her know their concerns.
Ultimately I do not hold out much hope because the party
opposite gives lip service to children. Once in a while it
mentions the word family. There was a lot of reference to family
and children in the throne speech but when it comes to
implementing things that help families retain the money they
earn, to protect children, that help marriages succeed, the
government is not there. It does not deliver.
On justice issues, there is the Young Offenders Act. Who has
been the voice pressuring for changes to the YOA? The official
opposition. A member of our party from B.C. brought forward a
number of significant amendments and pressured the government to
move. Finally we see some movement although there is some concern
that again a lot of it is window dressing and substantive changes
are not there.
We see cases where the government allows parole to be given to
known sex offenders. They are being released into our
communities.
Families and communities are not aware of the potential danger on
their streets.
1050
I can continue with more items from my list but the message I
want to get across to the House is that there is a litany of—
Mr. Lou Sekora: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
have been listening to the member and he seems to be drifting off
the issue that is before us. He is drifting all over the map and
I hope that he will get to the issue that is before us.
The Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. member for
Calgary Centre is working his way to the bill that is before the
House. He apparently is of the view that there are issues
surrounding the bill and government action on a number of fronts
that are important and connected with the bill. I think he is
making that point. I know he is soon going to be discussing the
provisions of Bill C-23.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, you are exactly correct as
usual. I am tying together all the examples I have presented in
the House and I could present more. In deference to the member
opposite who is concerned that I may be straying, I will limit
myself and not go on with the many examples that I could show of
the anti-family approach of the Liberal government.
Consistent with what Mr. Speaker said, I am trying to get
through to the member opposite that his party has an approach in
taxation, in protecting children, in law reform and in family law
that consistently undermines the strength of the Canadian family.
I am asking the member to consider that these policies need to be
reversed.
The Government of Canada should promote policies that send a
message of the important work that parents do. They are raising
the next generation. They are instilling values, character and
integrity in the lives of the future citizens of this country,
the next generation. Public policy must send them a message that
they are doing the most important work in the nation. The most
important work in the nation is parenting the next generation.
Unfortunately the anti-family approach of the Liberal government
is undermining that. The official opposition repeatedly has
brought forward policy initiatives that are intended exactly to
reverse that approach.
That is one of the reasons we are concerned about Bill C-23.
Apparently the number one priority of the Liberal government is
to extend benefits to same sex couples, even in light of the
concern about fair family taxation that has been presented to the
House. We have received petition after petition not just with
Bill C-23, but prior to Bill C-23. For years people across
Canada have been asking the government and the House to define
marriage in legal statute, not leave it subject to the common law
whims of the courts, but to define it clearly in statute, not
like it has done in Bill C-23 as a ghost law, but right in the
actual statutes.
Canadians have petitioned the House about child pornography,
family law reform and so on. The official opposition has asked
for a shared parenting approach in custody and access. We have
asked for the use of the notwithstanding clause of the charter to
protect children. We even brought forward improvements to the
Young Offenders Act to protect children from violent young
offenders and to put the non-violent offenders into good remedial
treatment, to get them back on the street with appropriate
reforms put in place.
We have consistently said to leave the dollars and the choices
in the pockets of the parents when it comes to child rearing
instead of taking them away. I sit on another committee of the
House that deals with children and youth at risk. That committee
is proposing a $7.8 billion national daycare program. Whose
money is funding that national daycare program? It is the
dollars earned by mothers and fathers trying to rear their
families. They may not want to have access to a national daycare
program, but they are going to pay for it anyway with the Liberal
government.
1055
Why not just leave that money with the parents? If they choose
to use daycare for their situation, fine. If they choose to have
a loving relation, grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, that is their
option. If they choose to stay at home and make do with perhaps
a little less income, that is okay too.
Right now the Liberal government says it is going to tax a
single income family making $50,000 a year 100% more than a dual
income family, 100% more. It is forcing families for financial
need to spend less time with their children.
Bill C-23 does deal with marriage. The union of a man and a
woman is the foundation for the family. There are six million
marriages in Canada today. We talk about the high divorce rate.
Of the six million marriages, every year only about 2% of them
divorce and 98% say it is working pretty well for them and they
are going to stay together for another year. Seventy-five per
cent of all children are currently being raised in Canada within
those marriages. It is an institution that works and it is an
institution that Canadians do not really want to see changed.
Our concern with the bill as I said at the beginning is that
number one, marriage should be defined clearly in the statutes.
The government refuses to do that. It has put it in a ghost
location in the bill where it really will not have any effect
even in spite of all the petitions. Number two, the government
has set it up with a definition of conjugal that is undefined in
the legislation and fundamentally will drive people into the
courts to have the state intrude into assessing whether a private
relationship qualifies or not.
Those are two big flaws in the bill. There are others but those
are the key ones that have us concerned that it will not work.
Ultimately this will not work. It will be a windfall for lawyers
and judges in driving people into the courts, but it is not
really going to achieve the government's objective.
Beyond all that, those people who may have an economic
dependency or may be caring for one another in some way but would
never dream of having a conjugal relationship, if that means some
sort of physical intimacy or a sexual relationship, are excluded.
There is all this rhetoric about addressing discrimination, yet
the government excludes people who have all kinds of dependencies
and close personal but not physical relations. They are
excluded. If that is not discriminatory, I do not know what is.
We play word games sometimes in the House. We all know it. That
is one of the big problems we have with Bill C-23.
There are some other things I need to bring forward on Bill
C-23. Of all the concerns I have presented about the litany of
anti-family policies that have been brought forward by the
Liberal government on all fronts including Bill C-23, and in all
the pro-family initiatives we have brought forward on taxation
and protecting children and so on, this is what is troubling most
of all.
Some members opposite are aware that we have brought forward
legitimate concerns. They agree with some of the things we have
brought forward. They have told me privately, “I agree with
you, but what can I do?” They know that some of the things they
are being told they must vote for are wrong. I see them working
hard to rationalize and find some to appease their conscience and
say that what they are voting for is actually okay. They twist
and turn and look for any kind of rhetoric from the legal
bureaucracy to give them reasons for taking the position they do.
Ultimately they know what they are voting for is wrong. They
know it does not work for families. They know it will not
strengthen the Canadian family. A lot of these initiatives and
policies will actually work against the Canadian family in the
long run. What troubles me is that they know it but they will
not stand up and do the right thing.
1100
It also troubles a lot of Canadians right across the country.
This is the reason why Canadians are frustrated with politicians.
I have seen surveys that have asked Canadians which profession
they trust the most. These professions included lawyers, doctors
and other types of professions. Do members know which profession
has the lowest rating of public trust? Politicians are down near
the bottom.
We can joke and laugh about that and say it is funny but what is
this all about? We are here to serve the Canadian people. We
should be the people exhibiting integrity and character as an
example to our children. We should exemplify the values that
inspire the youth of our nation but that is not what is
happening.
When we make fun of or mock the role of elected office, whether
it is the prime minister's office or the leader of the
opposition's office, it is like tearing down our own house. It
does not strengthen our nation. It actually undermines the
respect that we have for the institutions that are in place
across the country.
I encourage the members opposite to think about all the
anti-family policies they have brought forward and the message
they are sending with these policies that work against the
strengthening of the Canadian family. They have an obligation to
send a message to Canadians that certain things are important.
There are verifiable facts and empirical data that show that
marriage works for kids. It is not too much more complicated
than that.
The Liberal government has forced closure on this bill. I think
this is the 62nd time that closure has been invoked by the
Liberals to limit debate. Tragically, 68 statutes will be
affected by this bill and we will only have one day of debate at
third reading. When they vote on this bill tonight, which gives
every benefit and obligation to same sex partners, which is
currently reserved for marriage and family, I hope they think
about whether this is a number one priority and whether this is
the message they want to send to the young people of Canada, the
next generation.
In surveys and studies that I have seen reported in the press,
90% of young people say that their number one priority is family
and the development of family relationships. When members
opposite vote tonight will they be sending the right message?
Are we sending them the message that we agree with them when we
vote on the bill tonight?
I do not think that voting for Bill C-23 sends the right message
at all. It sends a very confusing message. I invite every
member of the House to think about the obligations they have
taken on and the commitments they have made to their constituents
who put them here. I invite them to think about the bill and the
message they will send to Canadian youth.
1105
In light of what I have said here today, I feel compelled to
close my talk this morning by moving an amendment to give all
members of the House another chance. I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Elk Island, the following amendment:
That Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in
relation to benefits and obligations, be not now read a third
time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights for the purpose of examining the feasibility of
adding a definition of marriage to all relevant clauses of the
bill so as to have the effect of adding the definition to each
act being amended by the bill such that the definition will carry
significant legal force and effect.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
hon. member for Calgary Centre's voice trailed down a bit when he
was reading the motion that I seconded. I want to make sure that
the official record shows that the words are “be not now read a
third time”.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is correct. Those
are the words of the amendment. The question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to rise to speak on this bill on a day that I
have no hesitation in calling historic. This is, in fact, a
long-awaited day, one which will allow us to enjoy full equality
with all other workers.
Before addressing the substance of the bill, what I believe the
lawyers call positive law—my colleague, the hon. member for
Chambly, will correct me if that is not the correct term—I would
like to begin by thanking, by name, the public servants who
assisted us in committee: Michelle Gosselin, Stan Farber, Lisa
Hitch, Sharon Colbert, Janet McIntyre, who was always there for
us and whose help was greatly appreciated, and Valérie Lasher.
As hon. members are aware, it is not commonplace for the
opposition to express thanks to the government, but I believe
that it is appropriate, given the significance of this bill, as
we will never stop saying. This is a restorative bill, one
which will remedy decades of injustice toward the homosexual
community, and we must rise above partisan differences to thank
the government for having had the courage to introduce it.
As well, Bill C-23 is a yardstick by which to measure our
society's progress along the path of tolerance. Not very long
ago, in 1994 when I was a new MP, full of energy, enthusiasm, and
idealism, which incidentally I have never lost, I introduced a
very similar bill.
1110
That bill likewise proposed to amend all federal laws containing
a heterosexual definition of spouse to include a homosexual one.
At the time in 1994 only 52 members supported the bill and
only a single member of cabinet, the then Minister of the
Environment and Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for
Hamilton East, did so.
Today, things have changed considerably. There was considerable
dialogue between parliamentarians and the gay community, as well
as all those who believe in equality.
I would also mention the extremely important role played by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, which, since 1979, has
signalled discrimination against members of the gay community.
I take this opportunity to thank the various spokespersons of
gay associations, such as EGALE, and its executive director,
John Fisher. This national group has for many years actively
supported equality for gays and lesbians. It is associated with
various cases that have come before the supreme court or lower
courts, such as the Rosenberg and the Egan-Nesbit cases and,
closer to home, the matter of M and H.
I want to thank the people of Quebec, whose voice was extremely
important in the debate.
I am thinking naturally of Laurent McCutcheon and the coalition
he heads so well. This coalition combines unions, such as the
CEQ, and community groups. I also want to thank the people in
Quebec City, including Claudine Ouellet, who appeared before the
parliamentary committee and very eloquently made the case for
the need for such a bill.
I also want to thank my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, who,
on a number of occasions in caucus, permitted me to make
presentations and were always most patient. We know that in
politics we do not all start from the same point. We have to be
prepared to convince people.
The wager we made as parliamentarians, in the Bloc Quebecois and
in the other parties, is that we will not constrain, but
convince.
We made it because we know that words, ideas and values are
important in democracy.
I give myself credit for being patient and having worked on this
for a long time. This evening, I believe that we will not be
disappointed and that a very large number of parliamentarians
will work for full equality. When the Speaker rises and puts the
question, many members will support the government's initiative
on Bill C-23.
I wish to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is, as
members know, one of my friends. In a way, he was a forerunner
and paved the way.
He too has shown considerable perseverance. I believe that for
this evening's results we will owe him a debt of gratitude not
just for persevering but for being extremely present in all the
debates on the equality of rights of gays and lesbians.
On that note of thanks, let us move to the heart of the debate.
First of all, we must recall that the bill before us is one that
is eminently respectful of earlier court rulings. I will, if I
may, give a brief background of the gay and lesbian community's
quest for the equality that the present government proposes to
grant.
1115
It was in 1979 that the Canadian Human Rights Commission first
mentioned that sexual orientation should be included in the
Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.
Recognition of same sex couples means recognition of the
emotional relationships openly engaged in by homosexuals. First,
we had to stop discriminating on an individual basis. That is
why the first court challenge involved including sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited
ground of discrimination.
I want those people to clearly understand that the Canadian
Human Rights Act is different from the charter. The charter is
part of the Constitution; it is the supreme law of the land. It
was adopted in 1982 under conditions that we all know and that
today's day of celebration prevent me from describing.
By contrast, the Canadian Human Rights Act is an act of
parliament. It protects those who receive federal services or
who work in a jurisdiction that comes under the federal
government. I am thinking of course about banks,
telecommunications, postal services and all the other federal
jurisdictions.
In 1992, in Haig v Canada, the Ontario court of appeal ruled
that it was discriminatory and contrary to section 15 of the
charter to not recognize sexual orientation as a prohibited
ground of discrimination. At the time, a decision which could
have been binding in Ontario alone was extended to the whole
country. Thanks to Kim Campbell, the then Minister of Justice—whom
we remember with fondness—that ruling was made binding
across Canada.
Then came Bill C-33. I was here when parliament passed it in
1993. The then Minister of Justice, the hon. Allan Rock,
introduced a bill to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, so as
to comply with the ruling issued by the Ontario court of appeal.
Following that, a long series of cases were heard by various
courts.
There were administrative tribunals, judicial tribunals, which
declared that it was discriminatory for the workplace not to
recognize same sex partners in collective agreements.
Another extremely important case is the 1995 case, initiated in
1993, of Nesbit-Egan v Canada. This one needs particular
attention because the supreme court judgment in this case is
what has led to our now needing to read section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as including sexual
orientation among the prohibited grounds for discrimination.
I will give a quick overview of the case that was brought before
the supreme court. Jim Egan and John Nesbit had lived together
for more than 40 years. Public opinion is sometimes prejudiced.
People think that homosexuals who enter into couple
relationships are not always stable people capable of long term
relationships.
I am not familiar with your personal life, Mr. Speaker, but just
think, here we are dealing with two people who have shared each
others' lives for more than 40 years. That is nothing to be
sneezed at.
I regret to inform my colleagues that one of them died about a
month ago, and his loss was a heavy blow to the gay community.
1120
Mr. Nesbit sought a spousal allowance under the Old Age Security
Act. This allowance is usually provided under the law when the
partner of the pensioner is between 60 and 65 years old and the
couple's total income is less than a given amount, which is
adjusted annually. The government denied Mr. Nesbit this
allowance on the pretext that the definition of spouse in the
law applied only to couples of persons of the opposite sex.
The Nesbit-Egan couple therefore applied to the federal court to
have it declare the definition of spouse appearing in the Old
Age Security Act discriminatory on the basis of sexual
preferences and an infringement of the right to equality
guaranteed by section 15. Their application was denied by the
trial level court. The decision was appealed to the federal
court, and the application was again denied. In legal annals,
one must really persevere.
The reason for the denial was that the definition of spouse was
not discriminatory under section 15. That is what the federal
court said. The court said it denied the spousal allowance
because there was no conjugal relationship rather than because
of their sexual orientation.
The court ruled that the distinction between conjugal and
non-conjugal relationships flowing from the definition was not
the kind of distinction that went beyond the limits and
constituted discrimination.
The case went to the supreme court and, in an extremely tight
decision, it replied to three questions. The important thing
about this decision is that it ruled that section 15 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be read to
include sexual orientation.
This is interesting because, already in 1982—the year the
Constitution was patriated and certain aspects of the
Constitution were rewritten, not always fairly with respect to
Quebec, but that is another matter—people wanted sexual
orientation included as a prohibited ground.
Who was the Minister of Justice at the time? It was the current
Prime Minister, who dismissed this entirely legitimate concern.
Those who believed that this kind of discrimination would not be
tolerated by the courts turned out to be right.
There was the Rosenberg case, where the Public Service Alliance
of Canada challenged the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which
did not allow same sex spouses to register retirement savings
plans in each other's name or to receive survivor's pensions and
allowances. That was discriminatory treatment.
Once again, the courts were extremely receptive and struck down
the provisions of the act which did not allow this recognition.
The government was asked to change the law, and this led to Bill
C-78. The Rosenberg case triggered an important change in the
Income Tax Act.
However, the bill now before us is in direct response to the
supreme court. This is why I cannot agree with Canadian Alliance
members. Generally speaking, and I say this in all friendship, I
tend to make a point of not agreeing with them. Canadian
Alliance members are not too open-minded when it comes to human
rights. We will recall that they voted against Bill C-33, which
amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. They also voted against
my private member's bill.
1125
They opposed Bill C-68, specifically with respect to the
recognition of surviving spouse's pension. Today, they are
opposing Bill C-23. It should be known that the type of society
that the Canadian Alliance is advocating is one where
homosexuals would not be recognized.
These people openly wish to maintain discrimination. They are
hypocrites. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. Let us
be clear: there are people on the Canadian Alliance side who are
homophobic.
Whenever they had the opportunity to trample or reject the
rights of homosexuals, they did so as a monolithic block, with a
single voice and guided by intolerance, by unanimously voting
against the widely recognized interests of the gay community.
Of course, in a democracy, we have to accept the fact that such
people get elected. They get elected by their respective groups
of voters, and this is why I respect them. But the Bloc
Quebecois and myself will never endorse the type of society that
the Canadian Alliance hopes to build.
Some day we will live in a sovereign Quebec. I hope for the rest
of Canada that it is never led by the Canadian Alliance. Imagine
what Canada would be, with or without Quebec, if, some day, the
Canadian Alliance were to form the government.
What guarantees could we, all those who believe in individual
equality, have with respect to equality of treatment?
Based on my knowledge of the rest of Canada, I believe Canadians
outside Quebec are far too generous, far too open, far too
sensible to trust the members of the Canadian Alliance.
As I said, this bill before us is directly dictated by a supreme
court decision that was brought down on May 20, 1999, eight to
one. Anyone familiar with the supreme court knows very well
that this is an extremely solid decision, and an extremely
significant one. An eight-to-one Supreme Court decision is rather
exceptional.
M. v H. was about two lesbians who had lived together for a few
years.
Before they separated, they had built up a business together and
acquired business capital. Under section 29 of the Family Law
Act, one of the women demanded support. This support payment
was not allowed, because the wording of the act called for
support to be paid to a partner of the opposite sex. A whole
process of court challenges then ensued, beginning with the
Ontario court of first instance and ending with the Supreme
Court of Canada. In my opinion, the finding in M. v H. is the
most significant as far as human rights are concerned.
What was its finding? It found that Common law relationships
are conjugal relationships, which must be considered as such
regardless of whether the couple concerned is homosexual or
heterosexual.
The supreme court first of all was giving recognition to common
law relationships, and furthermore recognized the absolute
equality there must be between partners in a common law
relationship, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual in
orientation.
1130
I would like to continue by citing two rather long paragraphs I
feel constitute the quintessence, the very structure, the main
thrust of the supreme court judgment. Out of respect for our
interpreters, I shall read them very slowly so that they do not
miss anything.
The supreme court made the following statement in defining
spouses as set out in section 29 of the Family Law Act.
Essentially, the definition...extends the obligation to
provide spousal support...beyond married persons to include
individuals in conjugal opposite-sex relationships of some
permanence....Same-sex relationships are capable of being both
conjugal and lengthy, but individuals in such relationships are
nonetheless denied access to the court-enforced system of support
provided by the FLA. This differential treatment is on the basis
of a personal characteristic, namely sexual orientation, that,
in previous jurisprudence, has been found to be analogous to
those characteristics specifically enumerated in s. 15(1).
The court is referring here specifically to the decision in
Nesbit. I continue:
The crux of the issue is that this differential treatment
discriminates in a substantive sense by violating the human
dignity of individuals—
I hope that our colleagues in the Canadian Alliance understand
clearly that the supreme court is talking about something called
human dignity. I do not see how, as lawmakers, we can oppose
something called human dignity. I continue:
—in same-sex relationships....The nature of the interest
affected is fundamental, namely the ability to meet basic
financial needs following the breakdown of a relationship
characterized by intimacy and economic dependence.
The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of the
spousal support scheme implies that they are judged to be
incapable of forming intimate relationships of economic
interdependence, without regard to their actual circumstances.
Taking these factors into account, it is clear that the human
dignity of individuals in same-sex relationships is violated by
the definition of “spouse” in s. 29 of the FLA.
Indeed, it is desirable. It is possible for a man to love
another man, it is desirable and the fact should be fully
recognized by the lawmaker. It is possible for a woman to love
another woman, it is desirable, it is noble, and it should be
given the same recognition by the lawmaker.
No amount of prejudice will prevent the attainment of the
equality to which same sex couples are entitled to aspire. We
have seen this in the court decisions. We see it in political
courage. I am sure that, this evening, many of us here will
wish to vote in favour of equality.
We must ask ourselves this question: Why is it important that
we show strong support for a bill such as this?
Hours could be spent exploring the cause of homosexuality. As I
have often said, I have five siblings, I have extremely normal
and wonderful parents, and my mother stayed at home while my
father worked. I wanted for neither affection nor love.
1135
There is nothing about how I grew up to suggest any dysfunction
in my family, and yet I am homosexual. I am very happy to be
so. I am happy, I love life, I love my work, I have friends, I
have love in my life, and I want for nothing in that regard.
Let us ask ourselves what it would mean if lawmakers continued
to send the message that same sex couples are second class
citizens, that, despite the fact that, in many cases, they are
taxpayers, they are not entitled to full recognition.
I hope that Canadian Alliance members will reflect on what I am
about to say.
Mr. Speaker, you were 13, 14 or 15 at one time; you might argue
this was some time ago. Whether they live in Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Montreal or Charlottetown, PEI, when at age 13, 14
or 15, young people discover that they are different from the
others in their sexual attraction, because they are attracted to
people of the same sex, it is important that they feel they are
full-fledged citizens, and to know that, in their lives,
regardless of profession and aspirations, lawmakers will provide
full recognition and discrimination will be tolerated neither in
Quebec nor in Canada.
This is what Bill C-23 proposes to do.
What is so threatening about it? Could someone from the Canadian
Alliance tell me how the fact that a person chooses to live as a
homosexual in society, to engage in an emotional relationship,
which the supreme court said ought to be considered as a
conjugal relationship, poses a threat to the heterosexual
community? What makes Canadian Alliance members view Bill C-23
as a threat to traditional families?
I come from a traditional family. My twin brother has a
traditional family. My sister Lorraine has a traditional family
with her husband Jean-Pierre and their son Francis. Yet, I do not
believe that I, as an individual, threaten the choice they made
to form a traditional family.
I believe the hon. members of the Canada Alliance need to review
their position. They need to support this bill. Doing so will,
in my opinion, enhance their status as a parliamentary group.
What this bill does not change, and it is important to say so,
is the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage is
not included in this bill. It is part of common law. Nothing
in the 300 or so clauses of Bill C-23 changes the definition of
marriage.
Those tempted to vote against this bill because they claim it
threatens the institution of marriage according to the
conventionally held view are, quite simply, wrong.
This bill does not change the definition of cohabitation as it
exists in federal statutes, which refer to a period of one year
of life together. This bill does not change the consequences
and legal facts surrounding separation.
According to federal law, common law relationships terminate at
the time of a separation. There is nothing in this bill that
changes this.
There is no change to section 18 of the Criminal Code, which
refers to the fact that offences committed in the presence of
one's spouse are not to be presumed to have been committed under
compulsion. Not only is that section not changed, neither is
section 278, nor 155 on incest, 290 on bigamy, nor 293 on
polygamy. Of course, the bill does not make any change to the
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act or the Divorce Act.
1140
What the bill provides is that the expression conjugal
relationship should be associated and used closely with common
law partner.
What criteria are established by the term conjugal relationship,
what do we mean when we talk of a conjugal relationship? In
Canadian law, since the lower courts examined the term conjugal
relationship, we have a fairly clear idea what it means. It
means sharing a roof, personal and sexual relations, the
presence of services and of social activities, financial
support, the image the couple gives of itself in the community.
There are of course times when all these elements are present,
at other times only some of them may be present.
I would like to give my opinion right off on a very important
element of the debate that took place in parliamentary committee
and elsewhere. I think that the government was well advised not
to recognize in the bill other relationships of interdependence.
They do exist in our society: a son caring for his mother,
someone else looking after a niece, one co-tenant attending to
another, who is perhaps disabled. But these types of
interdependence do not constitute conjugal relations.
It is to their great credit that people in our society look
after others. We need only think that, in a few years, seniors
in Canada and Quebec will represent over a third of our society.
Indeed, we as a society must think about how we will support
those who are financially dependent on others and those who take
care of other people. However, that reflection cannot take place
in a debate on same sex spouses or unmarried opposite sex
couples.
This debate has been going on for ten years in Canada. The first
case dealing with same sex spouses was heard by the courts in
1990. Now, in the year 2000, we have a bill before us. The
homosexual community and all the democrats who support it have
been patient, since the debate lasted ten years.
I do hope that we have an extremely informed debate on the
various forms of interdependence that exist in our society.
I know that some of my colleagues, including the hon. member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, hope that this debate can take place. So
do other Bloc Quebecois members, but the fact that such a debate
has not taken place is no reason to vote against Bill C-23.
Bill C-23 is the result of a very clear understanding of the
situation by decision makers, first because the courts have
issued rulings and, second, because the Minister of Finance
evaluated the costs of recognizing same sex spouses. We are well
aware—and I will get back to this later on—that these costs
are minimal.
However, the debate on the other forms of interdependency has
not yet taken place. The law reform commission of Canada is just
beginning to look at the issue.
I know that the government is proposing to set up a joint
parliamentary committee with Human Resources, Justice and
Finance, so that all the departments involved in possible
recognition of other forms of interdependency can use their
expertise, and so that we, as parliamentarians and decision
makers, can have access to as much information as possible.
1145
I urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of the bill and to
work towards equality and democracy for the following six
reasons.
First, this is a bill that recognizes one of the most
fundamental values in our society. Whether we are sovereignists
or federalists, men or women, young or old, rich or poor, we all
believe in equal treatment. That is what this bill is about.
Second, the courts of law, the supreme court in particular, have
ruled that we, as lawmakers, could not continue to discriminate
against same sex couples. That is why this bill is restorative.
Third, let us be clear, the government introduced an amendment
in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I was
not in favour of the amendment, but it at least has the merit of
removing any possible ambiguity. This bill in no way, shape or
form has anything to do with marriage. Marriage according to
the conventional, common law definition will continue to exist,
and that is a very good thing.
Of course, I cannot guarantee that 10 or 15 years from now a
court of law will not rule that it is discriminatory to limit
the institution of marriage to the heterosexual community. I do
not know, but what I do know is that, if a court of law rules
that marriage is unconstitutional because it is limited to the
heterosexual community, it will not be because of this bill. It
will be because of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Fourth, according to the Department of Finance in the Rosenberg
decision, this bill involves no substantial cost to the
treasury.
Fifth, 70% of Canadians would like us to end the discrimination
to which homosexuals are subject.
Sixth, last June, at the end of the session, the National
Assembly, in the sort of unanimous gesture of which the house of
the people is capable in the great moments of the community,
passed Bill 32, which amended 28 statutes and recognized same
sex couples.
This evening, for all these reasons, individually and
collectively, if democracy is to mean anything and if we are to
take pride in representing those who have put their faith in us,
all members must rise and support Bill C-23 when the Speaker
puts the question.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
I thank my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas, who has been a
champion of same sex equality, not only in the House of Commons
and parliament, but also in the broader society. I recognize the
incredible work that the member for Burnaby—Douglas has done,
not just in the New Democratic Party, but in the political life
of the country, in standing to ensure that gays and lesbians are
not discriminated against and in defending equality for all
the people of the country.
As we are debating the final reading of Bill C-23, I am proud to
say that members of the New Democratic Party fully support the
bill. Our party has had a long history of standing for equality
and defending minority rights, and we will continue to do that.
I would like to speak to what the bill is about. As with other
issues before the House, there has been much misinformation and
propaganda put forward and I think it is important to state the
case of what this bill is about. In my mind, and for anyone who
cares to look at the bill, it is about equality. It is about
dealing with the legal issues that resulted from the May 1999
supreme court ruling in M. v H., which made it quite clear,
legitimately, that governments cannot limit benefits or
obligations by discriminating against same sex common law
relationships.
That ruling made it very clear that denying equal treatment
before the law to same sex common law partners is contrary not
only to the charter of rights and freedoms, but also the Canadian
Human Rights Act.
1150
Since that historic case in the supreme court a number of
provinces and other jurisdictions have gone back to examine their
statutes to see whether discrimination exists. For example,
since 1997 the province that I am from, British Columbia, has
amended numerous statutes, including six core statutes, to ensure
that there is no discrimination against same sex benefits.
In June 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations. In
Ontario we have seen 67 statutes amended. As well, in a large
majority of Canadian cities, in private sector companies, in
municipalities, in hospitals, in libraries and in various social
service institutions across Canada we have seen the same kind of
change begin to take effect.
I have to say, and I think many people in this country would
say, that this is long overdue. It has been a long, costly and
arduous role for many people in this country who have faced
discrimination before the law, but also in terms of
discrimination in public attitude, in government legislation and
in services. Today we should take pride in saying that Bill C-23
is the right thing to do to uphold equality in our country.
Having said that, I want to say that it is also with a note of
dismay that we have to challenge the misinformation that has been
put forward by the former Reform Party. In fact, listening to
the debate in the House over the last few weeks, I have really
been quite appalled at the level of debate, the cheap shots that
have been taken and the hateful comments that have been made by
members of the former Reform Party.
Former Reform Party members have done the same thing they did
with the Nisga'a final agreement. They have tried to portray
this as a debate not about equality, but somehow that parliament
will be conferring special rights on a special interest group.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about
special rights. It is not about special rules or considerations.
This is about ending discrimination toward gay and lesbian
couples in common law relationships and saying that the law must
apply equally and fairly to all Canadians.
I have also heard former Reform members say that the legislation
will hurt children and that children will suffer. I have also
heard—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
regret interrupting this speech because I enjoy listening to what
the member has to say, but the Speaker has ruled, and it has
subsequently been upheld about four or five times, that the name
of our party is the Canadian Alliance. It has been ruled and I
would ask this member simply to adhere to the ruling of the
Speaker.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I think I used the term
the former Reform Party. The term alliance is an interesting one
because alliance to me implies that there is a partnership taking
place, and I have been curious to see who is really banging down
the door to form this alliance.
We have the Canadian Alliance, the former Reform Party, the
opposition members, but the point is what they say in the House
and the way they have taken on this bill. They have held up a
smokescreen, trying to fool people or give people the illusion
that it is about special rights. That is completely unfounded
and nothing could be further from the truth.
I have been particularly offended by the remarks of members
opposite that the bill will hurt children and families. In fact,
just yesterday a member of the opposition in his debate said “I
suggest that this government has given in once again to the
tyranny of the minority. We cannot legislate equality any more
than we can legislate morality”.
We do legislate equality. That is what the charter of rights
and freedoms is about. That is what our constitution is about.
That is what the Canadian Human Rights Act is about.
We do legislate equality and every member of the House should
stand to defend the right of equality.
1155
Those members are trying to legislate morality in the House.
Let us be very clear about that. When they do so we have to
understand that not only are they attacking gay and lesbians or
same sex couples who are in a common law relationship, they have
gone further than that. They are now attacking the rights of
people, whether they be gay, straight or whatever, in common law
relationships.
Yesterday some of the amendments that we dealt with were
specific amendments to remove the term common law relationship
from the Old Age Security Act and the Income Tax Act. That would
take us back to the dark ages. I thought we had entered the new
millennium. The members of the opposition party, the former
Reform Party, are stuck in an age where their moralistic views,
their narrow, hateful views of what Canadians are about, are not
shared by the majority of Canadians.
I ask members of the opposition who have opposed this bill why
they consider it to be such a threat to heterosexual families.
They seem to think that Bill C-23 will somehow undermine their
own families or what they perceive to be traditional marriages.
Why is there only one definition of marriage in their minds?
I have heard Reform members say that the bill will diminish
marital relationships. I have to question and challenge why they
are so threatened, so weak and so hateful that in order to impose
their moralistic view they are determined to deny equality to
other Canadians who happen to be in same sex relationships. Why
are they willing to do that?
One of the unfortunate consequences of their argument is that by
voicing their biases and their prejudices against people they
actually give permission to other people in society to stir up
hatred and division. We saw that during the Nisga'a debate when
Reformers made remarks that were then taken up by racists and by
people who harbour huge feelings of homophobia. This is what the
former Reform Party members are allowing to happen by their very
hurtful comments. They make comments which divide our society.
We in the New Democratic Party are absolutely appalled by that
stand. We think it is outrageous. We have the courage to stand
in this place to defend equality and to stand in support and in
defence of same sex relationships. All people should be given
the same treatment under the law.
At the end of the day this bill is important because we have
seen incredibly lengthy court battles. I know of couples who
have dealt with the system, who have been forced to go through
humiliation and discrimination because of the law and have had to
pay money to lawyers. We have seen some of the very expensive
legal challenges that have taken place. It is important for us
as legislators to say that we have a clear ruling. This is about
equality. It is about doing the right thing. We should stop
this very expensive process of forcing people to go through
litigation. We should be changing these laws. That is another
reason Bill C-23 should be adopted unanimously by the House
tonight, and it will be supported by New Democrats.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I noted that the hon. member referred to the Canadian
Alliance members as hateful probably a dozen times in her speech.
It does not serve anybody's interests to revert to name-calling.
I notice that when people disagree in the House, particularly
members of the NDP, they go on the attack and make accusations of
this kind rather than substantive debate, which is unfortunate.
One of the things the member has missed in our comments, which
we have continually repeated and which I would like her to
address, is the fact that our core themes on this bill have been
that if marriage is going to be put at the front of the bill,
does the member have a problem with putting marriage right into
the statutes, where legal opinion says it will actually have
substantive legal effect? Legal opinion is that, the way the
justice minister has done it, marriage will be left out.
1200
Second, she said that we did not want to put people in the
courtrooms and cause them to incur legal costs. Yet with the
undefined definition of a conjugal relationship in the statute,
people will probably be driven into the courtrooms to have their
relationships assessed by the state. We have consistently said
that is probably inappropriate, that it would be better to define
it in the statute. I would ask her to speak to those two issues.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I did use the word hateful
a number of times. I stand by it because I believe the arguments
from opposition members were hateful of other people in society.
For example, when they attack people who are in common law
relationships I wonder where is their morality in terms of
imposing their views on other Canadians.
I find that incredibly divisive. I find it incredibly biased
and I find it hateful. Basically it is singling out people for
the fact that they do not uphold the member's particular view of
marriage even though people in same sex relationships may have
all the attributes and the characteristics of what the member
would characterize as a traditional marriage. I think that is
hateful.
In terms of the other question I say very clearly that I did not
support the preamble, the definition of marriage contained in the
bill. Nor do I think it should be applied to the other statutes,
simply because the bill is about benefits and obligations. That
was the original intent of the bill. In fact it is a great shame
that the government caved in at the last minute and put in that
preamble an attempt to win the support of some of its
backbenchers, which obviously did not work.
The original intent of the bill in terms of benefits and
obligations was correct. To put in that preamble, and to put it
into every other statute where there is not a definition of
marriage currently, incites an inflammatory kind of environment
which allows opposition members, the Canadian Alliance, the
former Reform Party, to carry out its agenda of dividing people.
I simply do not agree with that.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon.
member made reference to treating people fairly. I could not
help but be reminded that a few nights ago in a private member's
bill by one of the members of our party the member for Wild Rose
asked for an ombudsman to be put in place to hear the issues of
the native people on reserves so that they could be treated
fairly. Her party voted against the grassroots native people
having an independent ombudsman to hear their concerns.
It seemed to me to be a very reasonable private member's bill.
It focused on the needs of grassroots people so that they would
have a fair hearing. Yet strangely enough every member of her
party voted against an ombudsman for native people. It seems
inconsistent with her concern for—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but we
have to go to the response.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy
question to answer. We in the NDP believe in the
self-determination of aboriginal people. We believe that
aboriginal communities, first nations, have the ability and the
capacity to put in place any procedures they want in terms of an
ombudsperson.
For the Reform Party to impose that, we see through its agenda.
When we look at the debates that have taken place in the House
over aboriginal rights, the Reform Party has opposed every one.
Then all of a sudden it comes up with the idea of an
ombudsperson. Methinks it doth protest too much. Its agenda is
very clear, but from our point of view it is something that
should come from within the aboriginal community.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in the debate surrounding Bill C-23, an
act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to benefits
and obligations.
I ask hon. members to keep the title of the bill in mind during
my remarks. It is important that we focus on what the bill
really is and what it really means and not let the debate get out
of proportion. It is a very practical and pragmatic piece of
legislation which simply seeks to modernize the way we treat
benefits in employment situations or in hereditary issues.
1205
I would like to honour the member for Burnaby—Douglas who on
behalf of the NDP caucus has been championing this issue for his
entire adult life. It must be very gratifying for him to see the
bill finally being debated in this way today. Some 21 years ago
when the member was first elected to the House of Commons we
would have been light years away from actually having a debate on
same sex benefits.
Progress has been made very slowly and at a very frustrating
pace, I am sure, for the many activists who have dedicated their
lives to it. As we have often said, it is like steering a
supertanker one degree at a time. Slowly but surely, with
dedicated people like the member for Burnaby—Douglas, we are
making social progress on the issue, and I recognize him today.
Gay rights are the last great civil rights movement of our time.
It is one issue we have failed to deal with during the last
century with the emancipation of black people and their moving
forward on social issues in the United States. That was a
genuine civil rights movement. The aboriginal people in this
country in recent years have finally been put at the forefront of
social justice issues. That was a civil rights movement. The
one remaining movement about which we have been negligent and to
which we have failed to give enough attention is the very real
discrimination that still exists in our dealings with gay and
lesbian people.
I am always frustrated and saddened by the reaction in some of
the speeches I have heard from the right wing extremist parties.
The extremists always find it easier to promote hatred than to
stamp it out. It is much easier to get attention by a divisive
argument than by an argument which actually unites and moves
society forward. More than angered, I am saddened by some of the
tone and content of the debate we have heard from the right wing
extremist party.
It saddens me in that it is a little frightening to think that
those Canadians can be that retarded in their development on
social issues. That is the only term I can use. Somehow they
have been held back. The rest of us have moved forward and they
have not. They have either failed to listen or refused to listen
or failed to understand what the rest of the country is telling
them.
The Liberal Party should not be any more proud in one sense. It
moved an amendment which catered to the musings of right wing
extremists in that an 1880 definition of marriage is now
entrenched in Bill C-23 by amendment by the Liberal Party to
appease and placate right wing extremists who simply could not
tolerate the idea of the bill going forward and threatening what
they believe to be the sanctity of marriage.
When the definition of marriage was put forward in the 1880s in
Britain's common law other things were typical about marriage as
well. For instance, two races were not allowed to marry. At
that time interracial marriages were illegal. We have gone
beyond that. We have matured and developed to realize that was
silly, and so we chucked it out. At that time it was legal to
beat one's wife as long as one did not use a rod thicker than
one's thumb. That was silly. That was obsolete and had to be
dealt with, so we modernized the institution of marriage to toss
out those anachronisms. There is another one we have yet to toss
out, the barrier which so horrifies right wing extremist parties
today, same sex unions and same sex marriages.
I am very proud that my children grew up in a neighbourhood
where they recognized that families could take all kinds of
shapes, that there was no one definition of the perfect nuclear
family. The reality is that I have neighbours where there are a
mom, a dad and two children, and that is a family. There is a
single mom with children, and that is a family. There are two
moms with children, and that is a family too. My kids have grown
up with that realization and they are not frightened by it.
There is nothing to fear by extending the same rights to other
groups that we ourselves enjoy.
1210
Right wing extremists always seem to feel that by extending
rights to one group somehow diminishes the rights others enjoy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It augments and
accentuates the rights we all enjoy. When we all move forward
together that is the only time society truly moves forward
together. If we leave any one significant group behind, we are
not doing our job in terms of equal rights and equal
opportunities.
Some of the arguments of members of the Reform Party or the
right wing extremist party are nothing short of ludicrous. One
criticism is that the bill will lead to “benefits for sex” and
abuses of who will be entitled to benefits. They are saying that
heterosexual men will claim to be gay so they can get dental
benefits or something. They are groping for ways to criticize
the bill. That is absolutely absurd, but we have heard them put
forward such arguments.
Reformers have consistently voted against every measure to
promote equality on this issue. We have seen it all through
their comments since I have been here in 1997. In 1996 Reform
critic Sharon Hayes, during the debate on changes to the human
rights act, said the Reform Party had taken the position that it
rejected the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian
Human Rights Act as both unnecessary and inadvisable,
recommending the exclusion of significant numbers of our
population from coverage under the human rights act.
I wonder sometimes if members opposite think about what they are
doing and what they are saying. I honestly wonder if they have
given the matter any serious thought, or if they just react in a
knee-jerk way, driven by emotion but certainly not by any kind of
principles with which we would agree.
At the start of my remarks I asked members to remember that this
is an act to modernize the statutes of Canada in relation to
benefits and obligations. It is nothing more. It seeks to grant
benefits to those working persons who may seek to share their
benefits with someone other than the conventional definition of
spouse.
This is something that has already been amended in most
collective bargaining agreements and in many provincial statutes.
It is really bringing the federal statutes into line with what is
already the norm. There is nothing radical or revolutionary
about the idea. It is simply institutionalizing what society has
already agreed should be the norm.
We believe the bill is a long overdue reaction by the government
to the rulings of the supreme court. If we need guidance on its
origins or the moral authority, we can look at cases such as M v
H. It was about payments after the breakdown of a same sex
relationship. Sooner or later we knew we would have to deal with
the issue. This very high profile case helped the country
finally come to grips once and for all with what happens in a
same sex relationship when the relationship fails and whether it
should be treated in the same way as a more conventional union.
It was useful for the country to finally wrestle with the issue.
We have all benefited from having the debate of recent days. I
look forward to the passage of Bill C-23 because I firmly believe
it is one of the last great civil rights issues of our time. I
am very proud that I am lucky enough to have been elected in a
period where I was able to play some role in bringing it about.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in 1996 when Bill C-33 was being debated it was
claimed that there was absolutely no future intent to bring in
same sex benefits. Four years later and here we are.
Is Bill C-23 not just a pit stop along the way to having further
amendments made to the entire institution of marriage or to the
definition of marriage? Could the member give me his viewpoint
on the matter of whether there should be any further amendment to
the definition of marriage that he would like to see?
1215
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I ask people to recognize
that the name of this bill is simply to modernize the statutes in
relation to benefits and so on. That is what we ask people to
keep in mind. It is sort of a paranoid idea to think this is the
slippery slope toward what could be considered to be some kind of
a dangerous movement toward anything else. Do not give it more
attributes than it has. It seeks to modernize the payment of
benefits and obligations in relation to many acts where there is
reference to that kind of shared thing.
As to whether the definition of marriage should be modernized as
well, I believe it should. I believe the definition of marriage
that we are currently using, as I said, is from 1880s British
common law. Many things have had to be changed to reflect social
morals and so on. I think it is wrong to even try to legislate
morality. That has been made in argument before. If we read
Oliver Wendell Holmes at that same period of time in the 1880s,
he was saying, “You can't legislate morality. The state has no
business trying to legislate morality”. We can legislate
equality, as the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out quite
correctly, but we cannot legislate morality.
I would say the right wing extremist party in this country has
things completely reversed. Stop trying to legislate morality
and admit that it is necessary to legislate equality.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, again I think it is regrettable that the hon. member of
the NDP continues to use terms that take away from the debate:
extremist and hateful. Those are labels which I think undermine
the credibility of the House. I appreciate there are different
opinions on issues. Our party has a policy that says that we
feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is
right in our policy document.
I notice that we had a motion on the floor last June to the
effect that this House affirm that marriage remain the union of a
man and a woman in law and that the House do everything possible
to keep it that way. A majority of members, perhaps even all the
members who were there that day in the NDP party, voted against
that motion to keep marriage defined as a man and a woman. I can
respect that they have a different opinion.
I guess I want clarity from the member. Is that the official
position of the NDP party, that we should not have marriage
defined as a union of a man and a woman? Do they want to have in
statute same sex marriage?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, nothing is stopping the
organizations that the hon. member belongs to from having a
definition of marriage different from what exists in statute.
What exists in law and what might exist in the hon. member's
church are two different things. Nothing is stopping the hon.
member from passing a by-law in his church or in the moral
majority right wing evangelical movement that that particular
church will not honour a union other than a single man and a
single woman, which would be fine.
However in fact in statute, in law where we need a legal
definition for really a contractual relationship to be partners,
we can be more flexible and we can be more generous.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, a debate
that has been filled with a great deal of information, a great
deal of emotion and I think is generally reflective of the range
of emotions that people across the country certainly feel when
approaching this subject matter.
Bill C-23, modernization of benefits and obligations, is
appropriately named. There is obviously an element of
modernization and certainly one of obligation that will stem from
the omnibus type of legislation that amends 68 statutes in
federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, you have heard and other speakers before you have
heard a great deal of consternation and oftentimes heated debate
on this subject matter. Members of parliament individually have
been receiving I am sure a great deal of correspondence and a
great deal of feedback, both positive and negative, about this
subject matter, this bill. Whenever it appears, whenever issues
of sexual orientation or anything that might be perceived as
infringing upon traditional views, values, definitions, there is
bound to be a reaction that is often motivated by fear,
misunderstanding and raw emotion.
1220
We should be rather temperate and understanding and do our
utmost to not fan the flames in this instance, as we have seen in
other instances.
I am not drawing a direct correlation, but there is a situation
currently on the east coast of Canada where we had a decision
handed down by the supreme court that has spurned a great deal of
debate about native and aboriginal fishing rights in our
fisheries. Once again we saw a tremendous outpouring of reaction
and emotion that bordered on violence and in fact led to some
instances of violence. It is incumbent upon us as members not to
add fuel to an already volatile situation. We border on doing
that in the midst of this debate.
These issues, no doubt, will not go away even in the wake of
this legislation passing. Whatever decision is made in the final
analysis when this bill in fact does pass, if it does pass, the
issue itself is not going to dissipate or disappear.
With that said, I have had the opportunity personally to meet
with members of my constituency, individuals who are watching
this debate and following it very closely. I met quite recently
with Ernie Curry of Antigonish who is the president of the
Catholic Civil Rights League in the Antigonish area. On April 3
I met with Mr. Curry and his group and we had a very productive
meeting, in my view, with respect to the contents of Bill C-23.
Although at the end of our lengthy meeting we may not have
agreed entirely on every point, the fact remains that both sides
were heard. It was a very open and frank discussion where
information and points of view were exchanged. I would hope at
the end of the day that is the process that we are embarking on
here. This is the type of analysis that can bear fruit and can
give individuals an opportunity to at least understand all the
signs.
As I said of that meeting, we may not have agreed on every point
but we certainly came to a greater appreciation of the points of
view that do exist. I was very appreciative of the opportunity
to hear from him, and certainly to hear from him on the efforts,
dedication and good work that is done by him and his
organization.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-23, as you would know as an individual who
has followed and participated in this debate previously as an
individual member of parliament for Kingston and the Islands,
this bill does not intend, nor was it intended to change in a
legal sense the definition of marriage or spouse for that matter.
Bill C-23, in fact, may now include a definition because of the
eleventh hour insertion of that amendment. However, it remains
clear that the intent is not to change, deviate, revamp or
somehow diminish any definition of marriage, or certainly not to
attack the institution of marriage.
Many definitions have been put forward in the House, most
notably by members of the Reform Party. These amendments were
brought forward in good faith as an attempt to bring greater
clarity and definition to what we perceive as the traditional
view of marriage.
This happened as well at the justice committee. It was moved by
the parliamentary secretary that we now include this definition
of marriage. That was one which the Conservative Party
supported. I can say personally as a member of that justice
committee that we were in support of that definition.
On March 22 the government brought forward this amendment and it
was adopted at the committee that the definition of one man and
one woman as defining the traditional view of marriage would be
entrenched in the bill. This does not affect what others have
decided upon as being their view of marriage. The Conservative
Party does not want to partake in any attack or any frontal
assault on what is viewed as a traditional understanding of what
a marriage is.
As a member of the committee, although I supported this
amendment, in many instances it is not necessary. It is perhaps
better left unsaid that marriage is a person's view of what that
union means to them spiritually, religiously, from their
background and from their upbringing.
1225
I fear that there are occasions when we become so caught up in
Cartesian thinking that we have to write everything down. I
would suggest this stems from the early eighties when we
contemplated bringing back the constitution, repatriating it and
putting in place a charter of rights that writes down every
obligation and every right in the country.
By doing so, inevitably the fear is that we will leave something
out. There has always been a common law notion that there are
certain things that are accepted and certain things that people
have come to view as practice, a normal evolution if you will, of
how the law acts and how people react and interact with one
another in society.
More and more we are seeing the country faced with a situation
where the government is becoming very intrusive, writing
everything down and reminding people of what they do and cannot
do, and essentially putting it all before them. It is like
layers of shingles on a roof. There is no point in time, it
appears, that government is prepared to maybe take some of those
shingles away before we put another layer on top of it. More and
more we are seeing bureaucracy become more intrusive, more
involved and more active in people's everyday existence.
I fear that this trend has to be somehow stopped or stemmed. We
should be re-examining what we are doing. A perfect example is
the legislation with respect to gun registration. We know that
the legislation came about as a reaction to a horrible incident
in the country where women were murdered in Montreal. Yet,
rather than try to deal with the root causes or with the problem
itself, the knee-jerk reaction of the government of the day, the
current government, was to put in place a registry system that is
cumbersome, bureaucratic, intrusive and does not in fact affect
the criminal element at all. It focuses on individuals who are
already participating in a very lawful and personally relevant
activity, perhaps skeet shooting, hunting or recreational use of
firearms.
Whether anyone personally engages in that, some individuals
choose to do so and that is their right, and yet the government
has targeted those persons as being a group that will be
legislated and almost vilified by virtue of this type of
legislation.
There are numerous examples that could be cited. It is not
surprising in a way that the government in this regard chose to
include the definition of marriage with respect to this
legislation. The government, of course, many would suggest and I
might be one of them, is becoming rather complacent, devoid of
ideas, very moderate and mundane in its approach to the future of
the country.
It is very obvious that in the context of this legislation when
people reacted, and perhaps reacted in a negative way much like
we saw with the idea that we might be subsidizing the NHL, the
government, like a windsock and the party that likes to lead the
parade in progress, reacted by inserting at the last minute a
definition of marriage. Perhaps it should have done so at the
earliest instance but it is a government that obviously is
completely led around by the nose by public opinion polls.
The Minister of Justice decided, and for weeks and weeks
building up to the introduction of the bill, that it was not
necessary and that it was not about marriage. She went to great
efforts and pain to remind Canadians that this was not at all
about marriage, and yet this is what we see when the government
is backed into a corner.
With that, and as I have indicated, we do support the idea of
having this definition in the interpretation act although, Mr.
Speaker, as you will know as a person with a legal background,
this will not in fact have any real legal implications on things
such as the Family Maintenance Act or the Divorce Act. These
types of bills will not be affected in essence by this insertion
in the interpretation of Bill C-23.
I know that there has been a motion put on the floor by the
Reform Party that attempts to broaden the definition and insert
essentially this new entrenched version of what marriage is.
I applaud the motivation for doing so, but I do not necessarily
follow the thinking or why it is they have chosen to go about
this task.
1230
I will be supporting many of the amendments put forward by the
member for Calgary Centre which focus in on the definition of
marriage and spouse in the various statutes that will be affected
by Bill C-23. As I have indicated, this will not have a drastic
effect on the current operation of family courts around the
country.
I reiterate that Bill C-23, which is omnibus legislation,
extends benefits and obligations to same sex couples and opposite
sex couples with respect to the fiscal obligations and benefits
that can accrue and flow. There is still a criterion or a hurdle
that a person would have to get over to benefit or become
eligible for that entitlement.
This legislation has been referred to by many as being driven by
the judiciary and, in particular, the supreme court ruling in M.
v H. The government cannot, by virtue of this decision, limit
benefits or obligations by discriminating against same sex common
law relationships. Denying equal treatment before the law to
same sex couples is contrary to the principles of equity
enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well
as our Canadian Human Rights Act.
A very simple principle was set out by that decision. It was a
very straightforward statement by the courts saying that same sex
couples cannot be treated differently on a fiscal level. This
was not a moral judgment. This was not an attempt by the courts
to tread into that sacred ground of marriage. This was simply a
legal recognition that there was a fiscal standard that had to be
applied when looking at human relations.
The previous speaker made a very eloquent speech about the need
to recognize that this is about humanity and about treating human
beings with the same level of fairness, the same judicious,
equitable standard that is applied around this great country. He
and others have referred to the fact that things like the civil
rights movement would not have occurred unless we had a vision of
how we should interact with one another, irrespective of race,
sex, cultural background or language. All of these stigmas that
can sadly become attached to individuals in our society must be
viewed with an even hand.
Justice is supposed to be blind. We have seen the symbols of
justice: the woman who is blindfolded and holds a sword and the
scales. This is how the law is suppose to weigh how we treat
individuals in society. This is the same as more recent
vintages; the way we have treated women in this country. They
were only given the vote as early as 1940 and only allowed to own
property in the last century. That came about at a time when it
was very volatile. There was often fragmented and angry debate
but the country's moral fabric did not tear apart. The country
has not been reduced to shambles and burning embers. The country
has survived.
To somehow suggest that we will be thrown into chaos and that
the country will completely break down if we begin to extend
equitable treatment and fiscal fairness to same sex partners is
inflammatory.
This legislation is about equity and fairness of obligations and
rights as it accrues to individuals who have paid into a fund.
This is often about a person having the ability to receive a
return on a fund that he or she has legally paid into and now
wishes to benefit from.
This legislation maintains a clear definition between married
and unmarried relationships. Even though the legislation refers
to marriage, it does not go into the area of what is a spouse. It
makes no attempt to define marriage as being inclusive or
exclusive of individuals who have chosen to live a certain
lifestyle. It protects and recognizes the merit and the obvious
view that marriage is a beautiful thing.
1235
The Progressive Conservative Party was the first to stand up and
say that there was absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing the
value and the importance of that choice. One is not exclusive of
the other. A person's view and a person's personal attachment to
what their concept of marriage is has to be respected, and that
is fine.
This legislation does not undermine marriage. It does not take
the pins out from under the people who have chosen to practice
their life in a certain way and engage in a certain lifestyle and
marriage. Marriage is but one choice that people have to make in
their lives in choosing how they interact with same sex and
opposite sex individuals.
It has been suggested that because the legislation recognizes
fiscal benefits and obligations, which already exists in our
society today, for same sex couples, that it will somehow
denigrate those who chose a different lifestyle, a lifestyle that
some would view as more traditional and some would view as being
the majority. However, those of us in the majority have to be
respectful of those in the minority. It is one of the
fundamental principles upon which this country was based. That is
where the tie-in exists between previous minority groups that
have been discriminated against. We have had very historic
debates in this Chamber on aboriginal rights, the rights of
women, the rights of blacks and the civil rights movement. There
is a correlation when it comes to oppression that has to be
remedied.
The major change in this bill, which proposes to encompass same
sex and opposite sex couples in common law relationships for one
year, is that both benefits and obligations will be recognized
for these types of relationships.
A lot has been said about the issue of conjugality, which has
been described by some as simply sexual relations. That is
factually incorrect. Some MPs have expressed a great deal of
concern about the definition. Let me refer to the M. v H. case at
pages 59 and 60 where the supreme court approved the criteria for
conjugal relationships. This was enunciated in the case of
Molodowich v Penttinen, which is a 1980 case found at 17 R.F.L.,
second edition, 376. This was an Ontario District Court
decision.
The supreme court held that it
—sets out the generally accepted characteristics of a conjugal
relationship. They include shared shelter, sexual and personal
behaviour, services, social activities, economic support and
children, as well as the societal perception of the couple.
However, it was recognized that these elements may be present in
varying degrees and not all are necessary for the relationship to
be found to be conjugal.
That is crystal clear as to how conjugal relations should not be
boxed into a very strict definition.
I appreciate the numerous interventions that other members have
made on this bill. I appreciate the considerable correspondence I
have received from members of my constituency of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in Nova Scotia and from around
the country. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada has
the utmost respect for the views of others on this bill. We have
chosen to allow members of our party to vote with their
conscience and to partake in a free vote, which is something I do
not believe other members of the House have chosen to do.
I appreciate the opportunity to have put my humble remarks on
the record with respect to Bill C-23.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has said that we are putting too
much down on paper about this issue. It seems to me that the
courts now have some difficulty in interpreting the written law
because a lot of the laws are not that clear.
1240
Is the member suggesting that our laws be written in a vague and
ambiguous fashion? Would it not be preferable to have our laws
very clear, very well defined and as specific as possible?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is because there are
two lines of thought. There was a time in this country,
particularly when we adhered perhaps more to the British model of
common law, where there was an acceptance of certain things that
existed. There was an acceptance that we did not infringe upon
our neighbour's house or trespass. I suppose that has all
evolved over time and we are now at the point where we write
everything down. The difficulty with writing everything down is
that inevitably things are sometimes left out.
If we embark on a system where we must anticipate everything
that will happen, it will be impossible. We will never be in
such a situation where we will be able to anticipate every twist
and turn that might occur in the law or every human dynamic.
Humans are far too complex for us to somehow foresee every change
that will occur. By giving narrow definitions to everything or,
to use the hon. member's words, specific definitions in every
instance, my fear is that on occasion we will make laws that will
be restrictive and exclusive of some groups.
However, I do understand that there is certainly time and merit
in having clear definitions.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party
is consistent in being vague and evasive on taking any kind of
firm position. As usual, he talks about how important he thinks
various aspect of this are and how much he appreciates opinions
but every time I listen to him I wonder where he stands on the
issue. It is always hard to sift it out.
When we were in committee I recall that the member voted against
actually defining what marriage was. When the justice minister
put forward her motion in committee he wanted to terminate it.
When the justice minister's motion went on to define marriage as
a union of a man and a woman, he wanted to exclude that part. He
voted in favour, as I recall, to exclude the definition of
marriage.
The member's party was split on this back in June 1999 when we
had a motion on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion
asked whether we agreed that marriage should be the union of a
man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. It passed four
to one, but his party was split. Almost half of his caucus were
not sure whether a marriage should be the union of a man and a
woman. This seems to be consistent with his actions at the
justice committee when the justice minister put forward her
motion on the definition of marriage.
It almost seems like members of that party want to say how
important marriage is but they do not want to define it. It is
frustrating for me, and I think for a lot of Canadians, who would
like to see this party take a stand on something and not be
wishy-washy. Maybe he can explain that. Maybe I have
misinterpreted his actions.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the
hon. member for Calgary Centre has misinterpreted my actions. If
he was paying close attention he would realize that was not the
case.
We are at a point where we have come to expect that we should
not let the reform party ever have truth get in the way of
reality. I know I am not supposed to use that type of language
in the Chamber, but it is very misleading for a member to get up
and misstate the position of a party or a person, and I take
great exception to it.
With respect to what Conservatives are, there are many members in
the reform party who feel somehow that one cannot be tolerant if
one is a Conservative, one cannot have an open mind and look at
things from all angles if one is Conservative. One has to
somehow lay down the law and hammer out a position that is
extreme, and that is not the case.
1245
That is not the view many in this country have of what it means
to be a Conservative. They tried and tried again to somehow
paint the Right Hon. Joe Clark and members of this party
similarly as not being Conservative. They referred to him as
yesterday's man. Maybe he is and this is why. He was doing
things yesterday that people are thinking about doing today. If
that is the definition of yesterday's man, that is a darn good
definition for the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He is a very forward
thinking individual who has contributed greatly to the growth and
development of the country. He is a very strong Conservative in
the definition that I feel very comfortable with.
I want to thank the hon. member for putting forward what was a
completely fallacious position on the Progressive Conservative
Party. We are very comfortable with the position we have taken
and I think the majority of Canadians are as well, not the 10% of
extremists who try to identify themselves as living and breathing
within the Reform Party of Canada.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to the member describe
Joe Clark and it merits examining the facts. Joe Clark was the
most senior and influential member of cabinet in the nine years
of Brian Mulroney's government. There were 71 tax increases and
it more than doubled our national debt, $300 billion. That is
extremism.
That is why our country is now in desperate straits. We are the
highest taxed nation in the industrialized world and are almost
$600 billion in debt which will take decades to pay off. We have
an obligation to our children to not sewer the economy any
further than what the Conservatives did partially under the
leadership of Joe Clark. I am here on behalf of my children and
all the children of the country to turn the country around and
set it back on a straighter track.
I resent the member saying anything positive about Joe Clark
because he and Brian Mulroney were the most negative and
destructive forces the country has ever seen.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid that members
of parliament say anything positive in this place. The hon.
member would not know that if it hit him in the face because the
opposition repeatedly digs up negativity and perpetrates
mistruths about individuals, parties and records.
To suggest somehow that one party is responsible for the entire
debt is almost Liberal-like in its magnitude of mistruth. What we
have seen is an individual who has taken this argument completely
to outer space in terms of relevance. It went from homophobia to
tax phobia. It is absolutely ludicrous but that is the type and
level of debate we have come to expect from the Reform Party of
western Canada.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out
that the member from the Progressive Conservative Party said it
was an extreme view. He said we were extremists in that we would
like to see marriage in Canada remain as a union of a man and a
woman.
Mr. Peter MacKay: That is not what I said at all. That
is a mistruth.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, that was what we heard in
the House. He stood up and said we were extremists and that we
were trying to exclude people from something when really all we
are saying is that marriage should remain the union of a man and
a woman. That is our party policy. That is what the House
endorsed nine months ago. The question I am trying to get the
member to answer is if that is the position of his party. Would
he stand up on that?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will say it very slowly
so the hon. member can understand.
I personally endorse the idea that marriage is defined as
between a man and a woman. In the Progressive Conservative
Party, that great national entity the member and his cohorts are
trying to kill, we have chosen to have a free vote which
acknowledges that different members of the party may have
different views. That is freedom, a concept which the Reform
Party is not familiar with. There are big lashes on its members
when they step off side. They are relegated to the backbench,
tossed out of the party or asked to leave politics if they have a
different view.
We may not be conformists of that type but what we have decided
to do is respect individual members and respect the various views
that Canadians have on this very at times emotional and divisive
issue.
1250
[Translation]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to speak today on Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and
obligations act.
[English]
I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues.
I want the House to know why I am proud to stand and speak to
this bill. I have listened to various members speak, such as the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the member for
Vancouver East. They have spoken, as national parties do, about
human rights.
I heard a member of the Bloc speak to the member for
Burnaby—Douglas when he said that the member has been a gay
member of parliament for a long time and has had the courage to
stand and speak about these issues at a time when it was not
popular. I salute the hon. member.
However it also takes a government with a political will when it
is in power to move the agenda forward. This government since
1993 has taken steps progressively, certainly and steadily
starting with Bill C-33, and Bill C-41, and the treasury board
bill which dealt with the issues of benefits and pensions and
moving on to the bill before us today. This is the culmination
of a long series of progressive steps getting us to the point
where we now have seen the last bastion of legislated
discrimination in this country fall by the wayside. I am proud to
belong to a government and a party which has had the courage to
do this.
What concerns me more than anything is that I have sat in the
House and listened to what I consider to be the spreading of hate
and hateful messages by the alliance party.
This is not only about the issue of marriage. This bill, as the
hon. justice minister has said many times before, is not about
marriage. It is about human rights, civil rights and political
rights of a group in Canada who have been barred from those
rights for a long time.
What I heard from the alliance party were suggestions that
concern me a great deal because it not only stereotypes but
creates dangerous stereotyping. People who listen to that kind of
stereotyping may actually feel there are many reasons to dislike,
fear and deny that particular group, gays, lesbians and bisexual
persons, their human rights.
It bothers me that the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and the
hon. member for Calgary Centre have given statements that they
make sound like scientific fact. There are a couple of very
important pieces of stereotyping which are dangerous.
The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan talked about feminism
creating gays and lesbians. The hon. member talked about the fact
that single parent families and divorce create gays and lesbians
in this country. I would like to quote what the hon. member for
Nanaimo—Cowichan said. While it does not bear repeating, it
must be repeated because it shows the extremism of that party.
The hon. member said:
A gradual blurring of the sexes occurred that gave young men
growing up in many female dominated, single parent homes an
identity crisis. This led to a rise in militant homosexuality, a
coming out of the closet of gay men and women who also demanded
equality. The things that had been considered improper went
looking for a desperate legitimacy.
When pressed, the hon. member was unable to explain why he
believes that single mother families encourage militant
homosexuality. When pressed he also said that he did not know
the answer to why homosexuals who grew up with both their father
and mother in the home would be less militant.
1255
That spreads hateful messages about other people. It is about a
party so set in its own need to poison people against each other
that it will say anything, no matter whether it is the truth or
not.
My father came from a single parent family led by his mother. My
father and mother have been married for about 60 years. My
father and mother brought me up in a home in which there was love
and commitment. I also learned from my parents that every single
individual in the world has human rights for which I must
continue to fight and that is what I am doing.
As a physician I have had many gay, lesbian and bisexual
patients. Despite what the hon. member for Calgary Centre would
have us believe, there is not a single piece of psychological
research that demonstrates that lesbians and gay men function
differently as individuals from other women and men.
Since 1974 the American Psychiatric Association has been on
record in holding that homosexuality is not an illness and is not
curable. The American Psychological Association agrees that
homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment,
stability, reliability or general social and vocational
capabilities.
In July 1997 based on research and evidence the Ontario
Psychological Association issued a statement supporting the
general principle that all individuals in relationships should be
treated equally under the law without regard to sexual
orientation.
It is the kind of statements made by the hon. members for
Calgary Centre and Nanaimo—Cowichan that are so disconcerting
for many of us.
As a physician, a parent and a member of parliament, I am
extremely concerned about the damage being done to young gays and
lesbians who are beginning to understand their sexuality. The
suicide rate among gay and lesbian youth is extremely high,
beginning at the age of 15 when young people are beginning to
understand their sexuality. Those young people are wondering if
they may or may not be gay or lesbian. They are worried about
whether or not they will be accepted.
They are now being further marginalized by the members of the
Canadian Alliance, the former Reform Party. I cannot keep up with
the name changes in that party. Those young people are being
further marginalized. In a place to which a lot of Canadians
look for truth and honesty, they are being told openly that they
are sick. They are being told that they are some sort of
abnormal creature on the face of the earth.
What does that do to the sense of self-worth of those young
people? What does it do to increase the suicide rate for young
people who are afraid and concerned that they will be rejected by
the rest of society? It is increasing the risk for them. This
is what concerns me so much about the irresponsible statements
coming from the Canadian Alliance, or whatever it is that party
calls itself.
Other bits of misinformation keep being circulated around here.
One is that the vast majority of pedophiles are gay. Some 96% or
more of acts of sexual abuse toward children are committed by
heterosexual individuals.
As a physician I have not just read the newspaper from which
members of the Canadian Alliance seem to get all their
information but I have also read scientific information, data and
research which has clearly said that homosexuality is not a
disease which needs to be cured. I know very clearly the damage
that is being done to homosexual youth when they are afraid and
are further marginalized. They are committing suicide.
I want to make one final point. I recall the days when common
law relationships were frowned upon. I recall the days when
relationships between people of different religions were frowned
upon. I recall the days when conjugal relationships between
people of different colour were frowned upon. I am glad to see
we have finally removed one other barrier that has existed for so
long.
1300
Gay and lesbian families are strong families. Gays and lesbians
are parents. Gays and lesbians are children. They are sisters
and brothers. They are grandparents. I am proud to stand here
with my government to put forward a bill that I believe will
probably be the single most important bill to come forward in
this House in the 21st century.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask my colleague a couple of questions.
I wonder if she would be kind enough to define feminism for the
House. There appears to be a number of meanings. I think we
might profit from that definition. There seems to be a feeling
that feminism exists only among women. I would like to be
corrected if I am wrong.
Second, does the secretary of state know whether there are any
churches or groups of people who belong to traditional churches
who support this legislation? I think that too might be useful
to those who are watching and listening.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer
my colleague's questions.
The first question had to do with whether feminism exists only
among women. My father was the greatest feminist I know. He
taught me to believe in myself. He taught me that women could be
equal to men in intelligence and in their ability to do anything
they choose. That is really what feminism is about. It is about
instilling in women the belief that they are equal and that they
are capable.
Second, the hon. member asked me if I knew of any churches that
were in agreement with the content and the intent of this bill.
I have heard from many members of the United Church and many
leaders of the United Church who feel that this is an important
human rights bill which has been brought forward by this
government.
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this debate has
engendered intense emotions, not only in the House but throughout
the country.
I believe there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about
what this bill will do. To me it is very simple. In the recent
supreme court case of M. v H., the highest court in this land
ruled that under Canada's constitution common law same sex
couples must be given the same equal treatment as common law
opposite sex couples. This is a question of equality. This is a
question of fairness. Since that decision came down a number of
other actions have begun.
I do not often have a great deal of good to say about our
Conservative colleagues in Ontario, but the Government of
Ontario—which is not a wild and woolly, let us be inventive, let
us do things differently for the sake of being different
government—acted very quickly, as all governments have an
obligation to do, to respect the laws of Canada. It brought in a
bill recognizing what the supreme court had brought down. It
introduced equal rights for common law same sex couples. Within
five days of that bill being brought forward it was passed into
law, without even a vote, with agreement from all three parties.
The course in this legislature has not been as expeditious.
Nevertheless, we have brought in this law and it will be passed.
My office and those of many other members here have received
calls expressing the concern that this bill deals with a new
definition of marriage. It does not. It has never been about
marriage. That has been made abundantly clear. It is only about
the rights and obligations of certain people who are living
together.
1305
To make it even more clear that this bill is not about marriage
an amendment was made. There were many in the House who felt the
amendment was not necessary. It states:
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.
It is a bogeyman to say that this bill changes the definition or
the concept of marriage, if that was a major concern in life.
Another issue brought out in this debate by many thoughtful
members of parliament is that it should not just deal with same
sex relationships where there is a dependency, it should deal
with all relationships involving a dependency. I have to commend
members, such as the member for Scarborough East, who have
brought this forward as an alternative to the relationships we
are talking about here.
It makes a lot of sense, where there are relationships of
dependency, that these rights and obligations should go forward
and be respected through the law. After all, we are a caring
society and one of our objectives is to ensure that individuals
assume a role of responsibility in looking after those with whom
they have a relationship. This could be a relationship of
children and parents or brothers and sisters. It could be
friends, of any sex.
There are problems, however, because we are not only dealing
with rights when it will be to someone's benefit to be able to
achieve, say, the pension benefits or the health and dental
benefits of another person.
The obligation to look after certain people has been recognized
in law. We have recently seen how parents have been able to sue
children for support. Because a legal relationship, respected in
law and based on dependency, is not always a one-way street, we
have had to rethink this particular issue. I will give an
example using old age security.
If we have two seniors living together, when they are married
then their joint income is used as the basis for determining old
age security benefits. If they are not married, but in a
relationship of dependency, using the joint income approach could
lead to a diminution in the old age security going to one
individual.
Another example is where an adult lives with an elderly parent
and then leaves, for example, to be married. The Canada pension
plan credits would have to be allocated to the elderly parent the
same as if there were a divorce of a married couple.
These are a couple of examples where the issue of creating these
obligations based on dependency, a relationship of dependency
between two individuals or two or more individuals, has
difficulties attached to it because it is not a one-way street.
It is not just benefits flowing.
This is why the Law Commission of Canada has been looking at the
issue, because it does deserve further study.
That is the reason I am pleased the minister has announced that
this issue of benefits and obligations being extended by virtue
of Bill C-23 will not be the end of the road, that a
parliamentary subcommittee will be appointed to look at the
particular issue of where these benefits and obligations should
lie in other relationships based on dependency. I think that is
the way to go.
1310
Meanwhile, we have the clear dictate of the Supreme Court of
Canada that, based on equality and fairness, these rights should
be extended and must be extended by our legislature.
This is a question of fairness. It is a question of equality.
It is a question of what is right.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member would say
that this is about equality and fairness. I would like to remind
him that the government moved closure on this bill at second
reading, at report stage and now at third reading. It limited
committee study to three and a half days. Many people were not
allowed to voice concerns about this bill. It seems to me that
is not in the spirit of the bill, if it is about fairness.
The member made the point that the issue of economic dependency
would be addressed sometime down the road and that this
particular bill is addressing something else.
We have often asked if the requirement for a conjugal
relationship is the criterion for receiving benefits under this
bill. These are benefits which have previously been given to
married couples and families. Now two people of the same gender
in a conjugal relationship will have access to these benefits. I
would like to ask a question of the member opposite, who I know
is a member of cabinet and an esteemed member of the Liberal
Party. I asked the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, who
spoke before him, if, in order to fulfil the requirements of a
conjugal relationship, people would be required to have a
physical or sexual relationship to qualify under Bill C-23. She
said no, not necessarily. When the justice minister announced
the bill, she said that benefits and obligations to individuals
in other relationships, such as economic and emotional
interdependence, were not included in the bill.
It seems on the one hand that we have the justice minister
saying if it is economic dependency, it is not included. On the
other hand, when I asked the secretary of state exactly “Would
two people who do not have a physical relationship qualify under
Bill C-23, yes or no?”, her answer was, if they fulfilled the
other requirements of a conjugal relationship, yes. I hear
conflicting positions.
It seems to me, if it is not about economic dependency and it is
about conjugality, are we not saying that we are extending
benefits to people based on private physical intimacies about
which a lot of people have concerns?
Hon. Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, let me say two things. I
think the member implied that he agreed this bill was about
fairness because he said that if this bill was about fairness,
then we need fairness in the procedure by which we implement it.
He did not like the idea that we had brought in closure on this
bill.
This issue has been before the House for a very long time. I
would simply remind him that the Tory Government of Ontario,
indeed the Tory Party of Ontario, with which his party wants to
form a union, had this before the legislature for a total of five
days. This has been before the House for a much longer time.
Let us look at what has happened in terms of the evolution of
the law.
1315
It was not long ago that there were rights and obligations
attached only to marriage, but then they were extended by virtue
of the law to common law relationships. Heaven forbid, but it
was progress. What is happening here is that those rights are
being extended to same sex couples.
I understand that this takes on the aura of something beyond the
moral code of so very many, but the role of government is not
necessarily to recognize simply the moral code of some people.
The constitution says that our role is to go beyond that to
extending equality and fairness to as broad a section of
Canadians as possible. Therefore the question of dependency will
be a further evolution of this law as we move forward.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is important that we be here today to debate this
issue. I am here to speak for hundreds of my constituents who
have phoned, faxed and e-mailed me. Hundreds more have filled
out petitions which I have tabled in the House. They contained
thousands of signatures asking the government to repeal the bill.
I want to approach the issue in two separate ways. The proposed
bill has not received wide public debate. I think a bill of this
importance should be subjected to that. A number of questions
have been raised and I would like to get to some of the ones
people have asked. Then I will get into the record of the
Liberal government on family issues and its lack of support for
families. I will also deal with some of the things it has put in
place, and some it has not, which affect families and undermine
their importance.
The first issue is the fiscal impact of the bill. The Liberals
have not put out any dollar figures as to what it might cost the
Canadian taxpayer. The finance minister when referring to the
bill and some of the amendments said that the fiscal impact of
these amendments would be minimal if anything at all and that it
was not a cost issue.
It is a cost issue. We should know how many people will be
affected. We should know the cost it will have on the treasury,
on the taxpayers of the country. We do not know that. Bill C-23
purports to give benefits to people who have never received them,
which will be an additional cost.
The whole idea of conjugality has been the subject of much
debate and many questions. Bill C-23 defines in statute that a
common law partner is any individual person who is cohabiting
with another individual in a conjugal relationship for a minimum
of one year. Who defines a conjugal relationship? The
dictionary says that it is of or relating to the married state or
to married persons in the relationships.
Does this mean that we are equating a conjugal relationship with
a married relationship? Is that what we are saying? Is that
what the bill means? Does it mean that these relationships will
be forced to incur the same responsibilities as married couples?
Is there that aspect of responsibility? Or, does it mean that
these relationships have a societal contribution equal to a
marriage relationship? How will the government prove the
conjugality of a relationship? I suppose the real question has
been how we will prove conjugality. As a previous Liberal prime
minister said, I agree that the government does not have any
place in the bedrooms of the nation. Why has the government
refused to clearly define it in the legislation? Where is the
definition?
Will there be any methods to stop people from abusing the bill by
saying they are in a relationship when they are not? How are we
ever going to pull that out?
1320
The bill should clearly define a conjugal relationship but it
does not. It should outline the rights and responsibilities
associated with that definition. Are there additional
responsibilities if one falls under the bill? What change will
that have for society as a whole? I want to mention that I will
be sharing my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Let us look at the relationships that are not included, the
other dependent relationships that exist in society. We all know
of such relationships. It could be a daughter taking care of an
elderly mom, or a couple of elderly brothers who live together to
help each other out. Whatever the situation, these situations
are not addressed because they are not based on conjugality.
There is a lack of public input. Time and time again people
have said the issue is of such importance that they need a debate
on the national stage. It has to go across the country to give
everybody an opportunity to debate both sides of the issue in a
very broad manner. We have not seen that happen. As a matter of
fact closure has been brought in on a number of occasions in
parliament and certainly on this bill.
We talk about marriage. Is the bill about marriage? Is it
about the definition of marriage? People have said that the
definition of marriage needs to be reaffirmed. We did that last
June in the House. A motion was put forward and passed that the
definition of marriage is and should remain the union of one man
and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that parliament
would take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in
Canada. It is simple. The motion passed. The people have
spoken.
However, the bill was brought forward without a definition of
marriage. The justice minister made an attempt to include a
definition but only in a way that legal advice has told us could
be struck down. The definition of marriage needs to be implanted
in all of the 68 statutes affected by the bill; it should be
embedded right in the text.
One key issue people have brought to my attention is that the
definition is important to them. They would like to see it
embedded in the bill, as witnessed by the thousands and thousands
of signatures tabled in the House asking for the definition of
marriage to be included in the bill and, if not, for the bill to
be pulled in its entirety. Yesterday we put forward some
amendments to do so but they were voted down. We have tried to
include that definition through amendments to the bill, but the
House chose to vote them down.
I want to speak a bit about the family as a whole in society and
some of the things we have seen which are detrimental to strong
families. One is the tax system which is unfair to families
where one parent chooses to stay at home. We think tax breaks
and lower taxes are essential in helping to create stronger
families.
Another is the child pornography issue. The notwithstanding
clause was not implemented to protect our children from people
who use, sell and collect child pornography. In the B.C. case we
asked members of the government to use the notwithstanding clause
to keep that law in effect while the challenge went through the
courts. It chose not to do so. It has been going on for a year
and a half to two years now and it is still in abeyance.
The whole child pornography issue has affected my work as well.
I brought forward private member's Bill C-321 to amend the
criminal code to allow equipment used in the production of child
pornography to be seized by the courts and taken away from the
people who use it. In many cases in the criminal code this is
allowed to happen and in the case of the production of child
pornography it is not. Hopefully one day that bill will be drawn
and debated. In the meantime I am pursuing the justice minister
to have that change made in the laws.
1325
Another issue we deal with on a daily basis when we watch the
erosion of families is that of sex offenders. We wanted to have
a registry of sex offenders. If we add up all the issues, it
comes back to what we think. We need a definition of marriage in
the act. We need a definition of conjugality. We need support
for families. We need to strengthen families.
We do not need attack after attack on the family unit to try to
take away its authority. Members of all parties have gone to
world conferences where there has been an attack on families. We
as a country should recognize the importance of families and do
things to strengthen them, not to undermine them.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a comment and
to ask a question.
I find it very interesting that a question was asked of the hon.
Secretary of State for Financial Institutions when the question
could easily have been asked of me. It was a question about
something I was reputed to have said, but the hon. member for
Calgary Centre did not see fit to ask me when I was here. I
would like to comment on it a bit.
The concept of conjugality, which the hon. member for Calgary
Centre either cannot understand or refuses to understand, was
also elaborated by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is a series of criteria that
has been in existence for over 40 years.
We have never had a problem applying the definition of
conjugality to married couples or heterosexual common law
couples. Why do we seem to have this problem of applying it to
same sex common law couples? Do we need to find out if people
have sex?
This is not the only part of a conjugal relationship. In fact
there are many marriages, heterosexual common law relationships
and others, that enjoy great relationships in which they may not
have frequent sex or may have stopped having sex for a long time.
We hear about the erosion of the family. The gay and lesbian
youth who have a high incidence of suicide, do they belong to
families? I would like to know if their families do not count.
The families of committed same sex couples who have children, do
their families count? Or, are we to think that their families do
not count, their children should not be seen to be children?
The issue of the family keeps being brought up. The family is
important, but what these members do not do or refuse to
understand is that same sex couples have children, same sex
couples are parents, same sex couples are grandparents and same
sex couples are children of and brothers and sisters of families.
Are we only going to cherry-pick what we mean as a family? I
would like to ask the hon. member that question.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to respond. The member just said that families were
important, but. Families are very important. The problem is
that there have just been too many buts, too many howevers and
too many what ifs.
In order to clarify conjugality the member for Calgary Centre
asked the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism at a round
table at CPAC if she was saying that two people who did not have
a physical relationship would qualify under Bill C-23; yes or no.
The minister responded by saying that if they fulfilled the other
requirements of the conjugal relationship, yes.
What does that mean?
What are the other requirements? Where is the definition of
conjugality?
1330
The minister says it is not about that. We are getting so many
mixed messages from the government that people are confused as to
what it means, why the definition is put in there. The
government should clarify it, take all the indecision away, put
the minds of people who are questioning it at ease and put the
definition of conjugality and the definition of marriage in the
bill, wherever it needs to be.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Lethbridge early in his speech raised the cost issue.
He said that one of the issues involved in this bill was cost.
I wonder how he squares that with the fact that everyone in
Canada is a taxpayer, whether or not they live in a same sex
relationship, an opposite sex relationship, whether they live
alone or whatever.
How does he square that with the fact that people who are being
addressed in this bill are taxpayers? Why would he continue to
want to discriminate against them?
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, while it is reassuring that
the member opposite admits that everyone in this country is a
taxpayer, or will be a taxpayer, and this is important, he is
missing the point.
The point is that Canadian taxpayers are concerned. Certainly
when a bill comes before the House they have the right to know
what component it is, how much their taxes are going to rise to
support that initiative, whether it is this initiative or
whatever ministry it comes from. They have a right to know what
the cost is going to be to them through the tax system.
I think he missed the point. Canadians have a right to know
what this is going to cost.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once again on Bill C-23.
This is the third opportunity I have had to speak on this very
important piece of legislation.
I would like to begin by summarizing some of the points I made
earlier. They are points that I have not heard refuted or
rebutted at all in the House by government members. I would
invite the minister or the secretary of state for
multiculturalism to listen for herself and hear the facts.
Here are the facts. The outline of my argument at the beginning
of debate was that this was an “A equals B equals C” logical
arrangement being put in place by the government. What it is
really doing is equating common law partnerships to same sex
unions and equating those to married relationships, in fact, in
the eyes of the law, making all three the same.
I have not heard that refuted by the government. The only thing
I have heard is from the Minister of Justice who said that people
who are married are able to divorce and that the Divorce Act
applies in their case, but the Divorce Act does not apply in the
case of common law partnerships as the new terminology would have
it in this bill. That is the only difference highlighted by the
minister, so in fact she is agreeing that what the bill does is
put marriage on the same footing as common law partnerships, both
heterosexual and same sex. That is what she is saying.
The minister of multiculturalism questions her own comprehension
as I hear her muttering under her breath. It is quite clear that
she does not understand the argument she and the government are
putting forward.
What they are saying in effect with this bill is that they
believe in sexual egalitarianism, that anyone can choose whatever
arrangements they like and the state will treat such arrangements
in exactly the same way through public policy. That is the net
effect of Bill C-23.
The hon. member is a minister of the crown. Certainly she must
be able to follow the logic of her own argument and the logic of
the government bringing in this bill. She seems to be unaware of
this fact. That is baffling and it should highlight for
Canadians that the ground the government is standing on is very
weak.
1335
Its defence has been a few arguments, one of which I will call
the name game that I referred to earlier, that is that anybody
who would stand and oppose this bill on the logical grounds that
the bill simply does not make sense is called names. We know the
whole host of names that has been spouted out by members of the
government. In fact, that is an argument and a tactic used to
shut down debate. That is what we call intellectual bullyism.
That is exactly what the minister and members of her government
participate in. When there is no strong argument based on logic,
then hurl names at other people and those people will not stand
in their places to poke holes in your weak and flimsy arguments.
That is a tactic employed by this government. It is a tactic
that I saw many times used in my previous life as a teacher on
the schoolyard. It is the same tactic that is being used here.
The minister has to understand that there are people, not only
in this House, members of the Canadian Alliance, but across the
country who will stand up for what they believe to be true even
in the face of being called names by those who assume that they
are in the right.
Another part of my argument which I explained earlier is the
notion of absolutism versus relativism. When a government
rejects the notion of truth and that there is any such thing as
right and wrong, it is on very weak ground. In fact, when it
makes the argument that what it proposes is right, that argument
implodes upon itself. How can one possibly say that what you
choose to do is okay with you and what I choose to do is okay
with me, but what I am choosing is actually what is right and
what you are choosing is wrong? That whole argument of
relativism upon which the government bases Bill C-23 is very weak
and flimsy and does not hold water. It is like saying “What I
believe to be true is right and everybody else should believe
what I believe”.
When one enters into that line of thinking as the government has
done here, what one really is doing is imposing one's perspective
on people. It is imposing one's moral perspective on people. The
members say that this is nonsense but if they followed the
logical conclusions of their own arguments, they would see that
they are basing Bill C-23 on a fallacy that does not hold water,
that does not stand up to the rigours of intellectual debate.
They are weak and flimsy arguments veiled with name calling.
That is all they are.
The effect of this bill is to equate all relationships as being
the same. The minister talked about discriminatory practices.
She is a minister of the crown that discriminates against certain
arrangements. Right now if a man chooses to marry two women, he
is discriminated against. What if he is in an arrangement of
three people? Let us call it a triad. The government
discriminates against that. I do not see the minister standing
up to argue that there should be an extension of benefits to this
arrangement, yet she said that there should be an extension of
benefits to another arrangement. This is the logical outgrowth
of this kind of reasoning that says that we are basing the law on
the concept of sexual egalitarianism.
In our society we have always said that marriage is a very
important institution. In fact, our society is built on it.
Because marriage is so important, we assign benefits and require
obligations from those who enter into that arrangement because it
is the arrangement that provides for the building of a society.
Now what the minister and the government are doing is saying that
they think marriage is a social invention, that it is not an
institution that has any immutable characteristics of good in and
of itself, but it is just some social arrangement that people
decided was a good way to go and now we will go a different way.
We will open the door to any set of groups of individuals who
would choose to come before us and argue their case and receive
like benefits as those who are married.
That is a dangerous road to go down as a society. I do not think
the minister understands the implications of what she is
proposing in this bill.
1340
It is very telling what the government has done in this place in
voting down amendments that would put in the definition of
marriage as the union of a single man and a single woman to the
exclusion of all others. It voted against those amendments time
and time again, about 100 times last night in this place. It is
signalling with its actions that it is not willing to protect
that definition of marriage. We have seen in this place what has
happened in the past.
My colleague from Calgary Centre and I were in this place in
1997 and brought forward a debate on the Rosenberg decision in
Ontario. We pleaded with the government when that court
redefined spouse to include same sex. It went way beyond the
boundaries of what was intended by parliament. We asked the
government to appeal that case because it would set a precedent
that would later on be used in other court cases to redefine
marriage.
We know that there are those who are pushing this bill who want
to see that, the redefinition of marriage to include same sex
individuals. What was the government's action? It did not even
put up a defence in 1997 when spouse was redefined.
How can Canadians trust this group when the challenge comes
because there are those who are committed to challenging the
definition of marriage? How can Canadians trust this group here
who did not even defend the definition of spouse to defend
marriage? A group must be judged on its actions. Empty words
and rhetoric do not hold water.
In closing, I would implore Canadians to examine the actions of
the government and what it is doing in proceeding on this path
with Bill C-23 and building it on the notion of sexual
egalitarianism. It is signalling to Canadians that it no longer
holds the institution of marriage as a sacred institution in the
building block of society. The Canadian Alliance thinks that is
wrong and we will stand up against this kind of move from the
government.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
member. It is a very simple one. It is that the hon. member
speaks about marriage and the fact that marriage is really the
only viable institution that we should discuss. Is the hon.
member then suggesting that common law relationships on a
heterosexual basis that have existed now in the law for over 40
years, that have given benefits and obligations to heterosexual
common law couples, are therefore to be cancelled?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not
indicate that in my speech. That relationship which the law has
interpreted as being equivalent to marriage, heterosexual common
law relationships, provide much the same function as those within
a marriage; that is that they are able to live together for an
extended period of time and to procreate and to have children,
which is the building block of society. I think that is the
intention of what happened when the government extended the
envelope to include common law couples because they serve in very
much the same way as a building block to our society.
What the minister is saying is that she wants to extend that
envelope to include individuals who by the very nature of their
relationship do not have that function and ability of
procreation. That is the envelope that this minister is pushing
and it opens the door to other possibilities and arrangements.
That is what happens when the minister throws the notion of what
marriage is about and the inherent good within that relationship
of marriage and leads Canadians down this path. The minister
continues not to realize that. That is quite surprising.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite.
It struck me that he is talking about outrageous triads. He
should think about the Reform Party, the CCRAP party and the
Alliance party in that order.
There is a triad from which we certainly want to keep our
distance.
1345
Having said that, I want to say that the minister knows full
well what she is doing, and so do we on the government side of
this great parliament in terms of Bill C-23.
What I find objectionable are the myths and falsehoods that the
member opposite and people of his ilk try to perpetuate and, in
doing so, try to pit region against region in this great country,
and people against people. Ours is not as they would have it,
the politics of destruction, grievance, hatred and pitting people
against people. Ours, rather, is the politics of hope—
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. That is a little over the top. Is this a debate or a
barroom brawl?
The Deputy Speaker: We hope it is not a barroom brawl. I
know the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington will put his
question directly.
Mr. Lynn Myers: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, ours is the
politics of hope and reconciliation.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Listen to them laugh. I remind those
members opposite: Stockwell Day, go away; anti-choice, anti-gay:
Stockwell Day, make my day; right wing bigot, go away.
That is who those people are. That is exactly who they are.
That is what Ontarians think about those people.
Why is it that the very party which talks about free votes all
the time last night voted in a block? They are the very people
who talk about grassroots support and what it means to have a
free vote. Why did they vote in a block?
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about
being the party of hope. The only hope for all Canadians is that
the Liberals will be defeated as soon as possible and the
Canadian Alliance will bring forward some positive ideas about
how to govern the country.
We have seen the member use the tactic—and he mentioned
that he was here for my speech, but obviously he was not—of
name-calling when he simply has nothing good to say—
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We cannot refer to a member's absence or attendance in this
House. However, for the record, I was here, and I listened with
some—
The Deputy Speaker: I think that is a point of debate and
not a point of order.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by
saying that what the government voted against yesterday was a
definition of marriage in the bill, over a hundred times. What
the member says is outrageous. What the member says is an
instrument of destruction and hatred, and that what people of my
ilk do is put forward a definition of marriage in legislation.
That is the very offensive act that we were participants in last
night and I plead guilty. I will plead guilty every day that I
stand for marriage and stand against the Liberal government.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this debate in another direction,
in a direction that I hope members opposite, indeed all members,
will be interested to hear.
I begin by saying that I support this bill. I support this bill
because it does what needs to be done, and what needs to be done
and why this bill exists in the first place is that it defines
same sex relationships as outside marriage and it defines
marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman. I support
it. It is there.
The question I bring forward is that while the opposition,
obviously being the opposition it must oppose the bill, this is
right and proper and it has to find all the means to oppose the
bill, I would like to concentrate my remarks on the fact that 19
members of my own party voted against the report stage motion
yesterday.
There is a good chance those same 19 Liberals—maybe more, maybe
less—will vote against this legislation when it comes before the
House tonight.
1350
I have great respect for my colleagues. I think it may be of
great interest to you, Mr. Speaker, to comprehend why some of us
who share exactly the same values, the same Liberal values if you
will, the same values about family, and the same concerns about
protecting the traditional definition of marriage and so on and
so forth, would vote against this legislation, which I believe is
very good legislation, and some would vote for it on this side
exclusively.
We have to go back a bit to understand where this bill comes
from. I am one of the ones who promoted it originally. The
reason I promoted it was because it was becoming very clear that
unless parliament acted the courts were going to define marriage
and spouse as a same sex relationship. It was coming. It was
occurring at the Ontario Court of Appeal level and in various
other court cases. This has been a fear of mine for a very long
time.
The first time I voted against my own government was when I
voted against Bill C-33 when it came up in 1995. I voted against
my government because it failed in that legislation to define
marriage and to define a same sex relationship in the context of
a legally married relationship. I voted against that legislation
precisely because it left it to the courts. Finally, this bill
produces the definitions.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with a
colleague.
Let me examine what happened yesterday. The 19 Liberals who
voted against the government voted on Motion No. 5, moved by the
member for Scarborough Southwest. The member's motion, which was
echoed by other motions from the opposition, would have had the
definition of marriage as the lawful union of one man and one
woman, which is in the bill, repeated in every piece of
legislation that the bill affects. In other words, this is an
omnibus bill and it affects 68 other statutes. It defines in
those statutes that same sex partnerships, for the purposes of
benefits or anything else, are to be seen in the same sense as a
common law partnership. That should have been sufficient, but
the member for Scarborough Southwest felt that this should be
repeated in every bit of legislation.
I take the position that to have marriage defined in law when it
was only defined in common law is a huge step forward. In fact,
by all analyses, that should be sufficient to guarantee that
marriage legally is only a heterosexual relationship. So why did
the member for Scarborough Southwest feel it was so important to
repeat this in every statute affected by Bill C-23?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, he did it because he does not
trust the courts to interpret or to see this definition of
marriage that exists in Bill C-23. He does not trust the courts
in future arbitrations that will involve the definition of
marriage to pay due attention to the piece of legislation that we
have passed.
Why does he take that position? This is the bad news, and it is
very unfortunate. I hope the justice minister and all Canadians
are listening. The reality is that members on this side of the
House no longer trust our own justice department. The problem is
that on this side of the House there is a sense that people in
the justice department are resisting common sense measures to
define issues like this because they have some kind of secret
agenda. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard time
and time again on this side of the House, on all kinds of
legislation, the observation that we cannot trust the
impartiality of justice department officials.
1355
I really hesitate to say that because a great many of the
justice department officials are very competent and very sincere
in what they do. But there is no question that an element of
suspicion has been created among parliamentarians and the justice
department.
There are many examples. It goes back to the original gun
control bill. It was one thing to have legislation creating a
scheme for controlling firearms, but what we found on this side
of the House was that it was very difficult to get even the most
common sense amendments to that legislation. Then, there are
countless other examples since I have been a parliamentarian
since 1993.
There was a bill on electronic monitoring that would have
enabled the authorities to affix a transmitter to a person who
was never even charged with a crime. There were bills that
limited the rights of the accused to get the documents of his
accusers when it was a case of a sexual assault charge.
Even in this very same bill that we have before us, in my
original speech at second reading I suggested that we change the
word “conjugal” to “sexual intimacy”, because “conjugal”
was used by error in the wrong sense by a judge who did not know
language sufficiently well. Yet the justice department, which
could have made the change and could have made everyone feel
better, opted to carry on with the word “conjugal”, which in
fact implies a heterosexual relationship.
The unfortunate thing that we have before us is legislation that
is good. It does do what needs to be done. It does define
marriage and it does give benefits to same sex couples in a way
that does not conflict with traditional values. But we have this
feeling on this side of the House that this bill is not as
perfect, is not as complete, is not as polished and as well aimed
as it could be because we believe, or some believe on this side
of the House, that there is some kind of hidden agenda which
means that later on the justice department may take this to
court. Because the justice department creates laws in the House,
it also defends them.
So we have this very uneasy situation that worries a lot of us
around here, that we are not entirely certain that the people who
produce the legislation for the government, who advise the
government on its legislation, are indeed as impartial as they
should be.
I hope that the justice minister thinks about this, and that the
justice department officials themselves think about this, because
this criticism is long overdue. I am sorry it has to appear on a
piece of legislation that, in my mind, is excellent legislation.
It brings back to parliament the definition of marriage and the
definition of same sex relationships. It is exactly what
parliament should have done long ago, but unfortunately the
optics are not what they should be because perhaps the
legislation is not as thoroughly aimed as it could have been. In
that sense, the 19 members on this side of the House who are not
willing to support this legislation do have a point, and I regret
that is the situation.
The Speaker: There will be five minutes for questions and
comments, and I propose to do that after Oral Question Period so
there will not be an interruption.
* * *
REPORT OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of
Commons, Volume 1, dated April 2000.
[Translation]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 108(3)(e), this document
is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the members of the International
Association of Fire Fighters across Canada work hard and risk
their lives every day.
Retirement at the age of 55 is accepted as a standard that is in
the best interests of firefighters and the communities they
serve. However, in part because they experience shorter
lifespans, firefighters are prevented from enjoying pension plans
to which they have contributed while employed.
Due to an inequity under Income Tax Act regulations,
firefighters argue that a regulatory change is needed and would
be an important first step in pension fairness.
1400
I encourage all members of the House to consider this proposed
regulatory change in the name of fairness for Canada's
professional firefighters.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my concern about the state of
Canada's health care system.
In British Columbia there are only two level two ICU pediatric
centres, one in Vancouver and one in Victoria. The level two ICU
centre for children in Victoria is about to close, leaving only
one. This decision is based solely on reduced funding.
On March 20 the opposition called on the Minister of Finance to
increase health and social transfers by $1.5 billion and forgo
the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions. We
have all heard of the billion dollar boondoggle. That is the
amount we are trying to shift to health care. The Liberal
majority in the House voted the motion down.
I suggest the preservation of health care across the country is
more important than handing out grants to buy votes. Canadians
deserve better.
* * *
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR REGISTRY
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness
Week begins April 16 and ends April 23. My private member's
bill, Bill C-420, recognizes the need for a national organ donor
registry in an effort to save lives.
To all members of parliament and Canadians I say let us do the
right thing and save some lives.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA CUSTOMS
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 7,
the Canadian government announced its plan to streamline customs
control processes at borders and airports over the next four
years.
It will do so by automating services and providing travellers
with special permits. Pre-approved travellers will be able to
use biometric technology (hand readers) for identification
purposes and automated kiosks for paying duties.
Essentially, this more flexible approach will improve service to
the clientele. Travellers and corporate clients will be able to
obtain a “Canpass” that will allow them to cross the border
quickly. Customs officers will, however, continue to carry out
spot checks.
The two overall priorities for Canada Customs in coming years
will be greater flexibility at Canada's borders and effective
surveillance.
Let us hope that the Canadian public will appreciate these new
measures, which have been implemented for their benefit.
* * *
[English]
EDUCATION
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Ontario's fixation on the need for
higher education to be dominated by acquiring high tech skills is
out of step with business leaders.
While the high tech sector is expanding rapidly and generating
half of all new jobs, what is not true is the notion that workers
in this field do not need an education in the liberal arts and
humanities. An article in the National Post quoted CEOs of
30 top companies, ranging from Jean Monty at BCE to Kevin Francis
at Xerox as saying:
Funding of higher education in this country need not be an
either-or proposition between technology or liberal arts and
sciences. It is critical that all universities in Canada receive
sufficient funding to ensure a well-educated workforce and a new
generation of leadership.
The Harris government's policy to focus on technology programs
for funding betrays its own low level of cultural and civic
literacy.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, prior to the Prime Minister's departure for the
Middle East he promised not to create controversy, but he failed
again.
First he upset the Palestinians by refusing to meet with them in
east Jerusalem. Then the Prime Minister did not know where he
was, in east, west or north Jerusalem. He then upset the Israelis
by giving bizarre advice to Arafat to use a unilateral
declaration for independence as a bargaining chip in
negotiations. Then he did not know what he said. This is not
new.
In 1994 the Prime Minister said in France that he would have
been happier if Canada had not been conquered in the past by the English
and if this part of North America had remained French. In
1997 he bad mouthed the Americans to other G-7 leaders, not
knowing that his microphone was on. He had lame excuses when he
chose to go skiing in Whistler rather than represent Canada at
King Hussein's funeral.
1405
The Prime Minister should be vaccinated for foot in mouth disease
along with his usual flu shots before he is allowed to visit the
remaining countries on his trip.
* * *
HONDA INSIGHT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, good
news. It is indeed a pleasure to announce today that Honda will
be introducing the first Canadian made hybrid gasoline-electric
vehicle into the market this year.
This technological revolution is called the all new Honda
Insight. The Insight is powered by Honda's advanced integrated
motor assist system. Combined with its lightweight aluminum
shape, the Insight goes an astonishing 100 kilometres on 3.2
litres of gas. As well, the Insight is designed to meet ultra-low
emission standards.
On May 9 Honda officials will be showcasing this vehicle on
Parliament Hill. I encourage all my colleagues in the House to
visit the display and see this incredible vehicle and maybe even
take it for a test drive.
I am sure that this exciting new Insight will be well received
by Canadian consumers.
Congratulations to Honda and its entire team. Well done,
Honda.
* * *
A VISION FOR CANADA
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone has their own views as to what makes a healthy country.
For me, more important than more money in my pocket I want to
build a society based on sound values. I want my family to feel
safe and secure and to feel that they have the opportunity to be
as good as they can be. I want to know that every Canadian has a
roof over their head, food to keep them nourished, a health care
system to care for their medical needs and an education system
that allows everyone the opportunity to learn and to grow.
These I believe are the first priorities of a healthy society.
They would provide all Canadians with the tools they need to
pursue their dreams and to be contributing members of society.
* * *
TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on January 30, 1994, Deborah Starr-Stephan, a mother of
10 and beloved wife of Tony Stephan, took her life. In 1993 her
husband, after exhausting all other options, was forced to
declare bankruptcy. From that point forward his family was
unceasingly harassed by overzealous Canada customs and revenue
agents. With her family driven into extreme hardship, unable to
cope with the immense stress she was under, Deborah Stephan
committed suicide. This should never have happened.
In the fall of 1997 the official opposition proposed a
taxpayers' bill of rights and an office for the taxpayers'
protection. The government needs to adopt this proposal so
Canadians such as the Stephan family are protected from the
summary treatment and abusive actions of CCRA agents.
Without enacting a strong taxpayers' bill of rights, the CCRA
could be plagued with the same accountability problems that makes
the IRS the most hated agency in the United States.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that on April 27 we
will be celebrating Canada Book Day. Canada Book Day is an
initiative of the Writers Trust of Canada in support of World
Book Day. It has taken place annually since 1995. Canada Book
Day is the largest single day celebration of reading and book
buying in Canada.
This year Public Works and Government Services Canada is playing
a major role in supporting this event. A quarter of a million
items have been distributed to Canadians through our department's
active network of over 700 bookstores. Today there is a promote a
book table in the rotunda of Centre Block to display key
government publications and to distribute additional promotional
items.
I encourage all members to take time out of their busy day to
visit the display in the rotunda.
* * *
SAYISI DENE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, poetry
preserves the memory of our society. More than just a historical
record, poetry preserves the feelings of those who live through
historical events.
From the 1950s to the 1970s the Sayisi Dene of northern
Manitoba were the victims of shameful treatment at the hands of
the department of Indian affairs. Fully one-third of their
people died from their forced relocation, an entire generation
lost.
The poetry of Ila Bussidor captures the pain and loss of the
Dene but also the strength and hope for healing. Today Ila
Bussidor is the chief of the Sayisi Dene. She is leading her
people in their fight for compensation.
Her poetry speaks of night spirits, the spirits of those who died.
I dream of an eagle
Forever coming to me with messages of strength
Always in friendship and kindness.
I touch the great sacred bird of spirit.
He cares for me, each time I vision him.
He lets me carry him.
He gives me his sacred feathers.
He walks with me.
I am not afraid of him.
I believe he is my guardian.
The spirits of my father and mother
Beside me in my times of pain.
* * *
[Translation]
AÉROPORTS DE MONTRÉAL
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a
number of weeks now, the papers have been full of revelations on
the inadequate management practices of Aéroports de Montréal.
These troubling revelations have led the Bloc Quebecois to send
for the chairperson of the board of directors, Ms.
Pageau-Goyette, to have her appear before the Standing Committee
on Transport. Problems of labour relations, lack of
transparency and the appearance of conflict of interest have
been raised.
1410
The responses provided by ADM management have been, to say the
least, unsatisfactory and perplexing. Crucial decisions on the
development of Montreal were made by ADM, and major investments
were announced in a context that shook public confidence
considerably.
The Bloc Quebecois does not intend to stop there. The airports
of Montreal are public assets funded out of the public purse.
Management of ADM will have to review its practices in order to
win back the confidence of the public and elected
representatives.
There will be no question of repeating the practices being
followed at Department of Human Resources Development within an
agency given the task of developing infrastructures so important
to Quebec.
* * *
[English]
IRAN
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Thursday of this week will see the beginning of a trial
in Iran that those of us who value human rights and democracy
will be closely watching.
Thirteen Jewish citizens of Iran stand accused of crimes against
the state. Many foreign observers are of the view that these
charges are unfounded and have been trumped up by Iran's
conservative clergy as a part of their scheme to slow the opening
of Iran.
Many of us watched with interest and hope during the recent
elections in Iran which moved the country closer to being the
open and democratic society that its citizens wish.
We are encouraged by some of the recent positive initiatives put
forward by the Iranian government concerning the prosecution of
the accused. Basic rights, such as the right to choose free and
independent counsel, and certain bail provisions have been
granted. However, the Iranian government must act to ensure that
provisions of a fair trial are upheld throughout the course of
the proceedings.
Many of us respect Iran for its rich history and its dynamic and
educated population. However, our eyes will be on this trial and
we expect that the accused will receive a fair verdict and that
religious freedom will be protected in Iran.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what better
to bolster the Prime Minister of Canada's image, which is
suffering from scandals, investigations and challenges to his
leadership, than a nice little trip abroad, better yet to the
Middle East where, with lots of coaching, he will be able to show
what a statesman he is and how deft he is at international
relations.
His advisers must be sorely disappointed. Instead of the
hoped-for success, the Prime Minister is busily forgetting what
he was told, getting his foot in it, and upsetting everyone.
“Personally, I think it better to keep the declaration of
independence as a bargaining tool”, he told Yasser Arafat in
French, while the Jerusalem Post had his advisers quoting him
in English as saying the exact opposite.
It seems that the Prime Minister is inconsistent, whatever the
time zone. Stay tuned tomorrow for what happened during the
Prime Minister's trip to the Golan Heights.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals' so-called reforms to the unemployment insurance system
have been devastating to Canada's unemployed. These days only
36% of unemployed Canadians qualify for EI benefits, down from
87% in 1989.
In St. John's East the EI cuts are costing my constituency $50
million annually. In neighbouring St. John's West, in byelection
country, they are costing it $56 million a year. The riding of
Burin—St. George's is losing $81.7 million annually and
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte is losing a further $74.7 million.
All told, the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador has lost over
$1 billion in EI revenues since the Liberals came to power in
1993.
What have the Liberals given back? They have increased EI
maternity leave from six months to a year. However, given that
only 31% of unemployed Canadian women actually qualify for
benefits, that is very cold comfort.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is National Volunteer Week and it gives us an opportunity to
look at some of the profiles of our volunteers.
In a report entitled “Religion, Volunteering and Charitable
Giving” there is one very startling correlation. The more
active one is religiously, the more active one is in making
Canada a civil society.
Only 14% of Canadians describe themselves as active religiously,
but they make up 43% of the volunteers and contribute over 50% of
the overall time volunteered. In addition, they are responsible
for over 65% of charitable giving.
If the religiously inactive contributed in the same manner,
donations would double and volunteer time would increase by 60%.
All members should congratulate those who are religiously active
in their communities and who make our society more civil as a
result of their faith and their commitments.
I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all of my
constituents, religiously active or otherwise, to find time and
moneys to truly make a difference.
* * *
1415
IRAN
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this Thursday, 13 Jewish-Iranian men will be put on trial in Iran
on false charges of espionage.
Even if one sets aside the critical issues of religious freedom
raised by this case, what is clear is that these men have the
right to a fair trial under Article 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
That right includes access to legal representation of their own
choosing and adequate time to prepare their defence in an open
trial which international observers are free to attend and
monitor. Unfortunately, at this point it appears that these men
will be tried in a closed, Iranian revolutionary court without
their chosen legal counsel.
The NDP joins the international community in demanding that
these 13 Jewish-Iranians receive a fair trial. We call upon the
Iranian government to ensure religious freedom for all its
citizens, regardless of their faith.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
REVENUE CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is report card day today, and it
ain't pretty.
The auditor general criticized mismanagement in immigration,
Indian affairs, HRD and the solicitor general's office, but it
was the revenue department which got first prize today.
Revenue hands out more than $2 billion, mainly to large
corporations. That generates $20 million to $55 million of
benefit to the Canadian economy. It is another massive
boondoggle. It is hardly a deal.
Does the revenue minister think that taxpayers really enjoy
having their money wasted by the very department which collects
it?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be clear from the outset.
Canadian Alliance members would have people believe that there
were problems and that funds under the responsibility of the
Department of Human Resources Development disappeared. They are
once again trying to suggest that funds have disappeared.
I simply want to say that there is no mention of money having
been lost in any department. It must also be understood that what
the auditor general's report refers to goes back to 1994 and even
long before that. But in 1994, a decision was made to set
deadlines for claiming tax credits for research and development,
resulting in 16,000 claims being submitted at the same time, all
within a four month period.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, maybe it is not about the loss of
money. It is about the massive mismanagement of money in every
single department.
According to the auditor general, revenue plays favourites with
who gets access to that cash. In fact, less than 10% of
companies who apply get 85% of the money.
In one case the department spent nearly 10,000 hours trying to
figure out how one guy could even qualify for the cash. He ended
up getting twice as much as he asked for. Now, there is a real
deal.
Why is it that every time anyone in the government sees a pot of
taxpayers' cash, they just cannot resist the temptation to dish
it out?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they obviously have no
idea of what economic development is about, let alone tax credits
for research and development.
What I explained, and this is important, is that, in 1994, for
reasons of good management, it was announced in the budget that
tax credits for research and development had to be claimed in the
18 months following the year in which the money had been spent.
The result was that all the claims, some of them dating back to
1985, were submitted at the same time. As a result, 16,000
additional requests were submitted within a four month period. I
feel that the department did a good job and that the auditor
general's report tabled today will be a good tool to ensure that
our program can be improved.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could brag about that
and think that it is just a terrific report.
They should be calling their department “Expenditure Canada”.
Collect more in taxes this year? Well, quick, spend it as
quickly as possible before the public finds out.
One applicant got a half million dollars more than he even asked
for. He was told, “Do not worry about it. It is okay. It will
not happen again, we promise”. Then they were told, “Keep the
cash”.
That is unbelievable from the government. Why does every single
day see another government boondoggle?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are mechanisms
within the agency to ensure that all tax credit requests for
research and development are reviewed.
Discussions and appeal procedures were also used. Again, at the
risk of repeating myself, the official opposition obviously
cannot and will not understand. If the Canadian Alliance members
were in government, there would be no business sector and no
economic development in Canada. It is impossible to discuss
program management with them. They cannot understand what it is
about. As early as 1994, we began to deal with the 16,000
additional requests, and I am proud of the work the agency has
done.
1420
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, try this one on for size.
The tax auditor approves a scientific tax credit for tens of
millions of dollars. The auditor sends it upstairs to head
office for approval, and what do they do? They say, “Not tens of
millions of dollars surely. Let's double that”.
My question for the Minister of National Revenue is simple. Why
did his senior bureaucrats double the tax credit that was
authorized by the auditor without any additional information?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within the space of four months
in 1994, the agency received 16,000 requests. Nevertheless, the
agency was able to handle them all, through a process of
analysis, consultation, discussion and appeal.
I must point out that, looking at all of the auditor general's
recommendations in his report, it is important to note that we
in the agency recognized the need to improve tax credit
management, and the report will be of great use in that
connection.
Today, however, it is being brought up in the House in order to
score some cheap points. Where were they when we were working
on improving the system?
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): We
certainly agree that they need improvement, Mr. Speaker.
Let us continue on. Would you believe in this same situation
that they had already paid the subcontractor tens of millions of
dollars for this particular work. When they sold it to the
bigger company, they got the same credit all over again and the
head office of Revenue Canada multiplied it by two. They were
paid three times. The taxpayers paid three times for the same
work.
The question is quite simple. Why is it when this government
gets into a huge boondoggle it has to multiply it by three?
[Translation]
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that I need
to say again several times: 16,000 applications in four months.
I am proud of the work that was done by the agency staff in very
challenging circumstances.
Moreover, the auditor general describes the situation as an
administrative nightmare. It was very difficult.
However, I would like to ask the official opposition where they
were when an action plan was put forth to try to improve the
system? Where were they when a conference was organized in
Vancouver to consult the business community? Where were they
when meetings were held with the business community in Montreal?
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
certainly an honour for Canada to chair the Security Council of
the United Nations.
But, how can we reconcile Canada's important responsibilities on
the security council with the series of errors committed by the
Prime Minister in the Middle East, where political equilibrium
is so fragile?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada was elected a member of the security council, and it has
been recognized that, as a member of this council, Canada is
governed by the current Prime Minister, who is in a position to
provide good leadership for this country in world councils.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
can see how skilled he is in counsel at the moment in Israel.
We wonder how well the Prime Minister was prepared for this
trip.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that the Prime
Minister, far from continuing the Pearson tradition, is
significantly tarnishing Canada's diplomatic reputation
internationally?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the current Prime Minister walks along the same path as
the late Prime Minister Pearson. He is working so that a region
in the Middle East—and the world—can be at peace, and I think
he is doing a very good job of it.
1425
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, should the
Prime Minister not realize that, with his comments on Jerusalem
and Palestine's unilateral declaration of independence, he has
succeeded in upsetting both the Israelis and the Palestinians,
doing nothing to improve the climate for the pursuit of peace
negotiations, and all in less than 24 hours?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
in no way accept the premise of the hon. member's question.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is an
extremely important matter, because that part of the world has
suffered too much for someone to jeopardize the slim hope of
peace.
How can the Canadian government hope to play a useful role in
future negotiations in the Middle East when its Prime Minister
seems so oblivious to the impact of his statements?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister and Canada are continuing to work in support
of the cause of peace in the Middle East and throughout the
world.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
received a letter from Agatha Corcoran of Mt. Pearl,
Newfoundland.
I have been waiting for an MRI since December 1999. I have
constant pain and spasms in my neck. I'm off work, have run out
of benefits and can do very little. An MRI will determine what
is causing the problem but it's not scheduled until July.
Meanwhile, she is staying at home with ice, trying to cope.
I ask the health minister, why must Agatha Corcoran and
thousands of Canadians like her wait in pain while this
government withholds desperately needed resources?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows full well that over the course of the last
14 months the government has increased by $14 billion the amount
of transfers to provinces available for health, that just in the
last 14 months the cash portion of the transfer has gone from
$12.5 billion to $15.5 billion a year. As the Prime Minister has
said, we are prepared to sign on to even more funding long term
if there is a sensible plan to address the kinds of difficulties
the member has just referred to.
I suggest that governments working together can achieve it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yet
again the health minister admits that more money is needed but
Agatha Corcoran and others will just have to wait—wait, and go
on suffering.
Let me ask about another patient who wrote from St. John's. Jody
Ann O'Brien was referred to a specialist seven months ago for
debilitating arthritis. She still has not seen a specialist
despite the best efforts by her family doctor.
Would the minister please explain why his government is spending
money on advertisements instead of helping patients like Jody Ann
O'Brien?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians spend $90 billion a year on health care. Money is part
of the issue, but a large part of the issue is also how that
money is spent and the kind of changes we need to provide
services to the people she has referred to.
No less a public personage than Bob Rae, former NDP Premier of
Ontario, said that this government has it right: money yes, but
connected with a plan to help solve these problems. The NDP
Government of British Columbia takes the same position.
Will not the member work with us to make sure that if we spend
more money, we spend it to solve problems and not simply to score
political points?
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister will not receive
any Nobel Peace Prize for help in building peace in the Middle
East. Instead of supporting the creation of a new Palestinian
state within the peace process, the Prime Minister endangers the
peace process by saying that he will recognize a UDI by
Palestinians.
These comments were improper and show dramatic change in
Canadian foreign policy. Is it not time for parliament to call
the Prime Minister back to Canada before he further jeopardizes
Canada's international reputation with respect to foreign policy
in the Middle East?
1430
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the Prime Minister in the Middle East
and at home is to urge the parties to strive in good faith to
reach a negotiated solution.
That is his position at home. That is his position in the
Middle East. Surely that is something all should not object to,
instead of being like the Conservatives and trying to make
political capital out of efforts to reach a just solution in the
Middle East.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Prime Minister should explain the Canadian position to
the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister claims to like clarity, but he generates
confusion. After having always condemned the threat of a
unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec, he would now
give his blessing to such a declaration by Palestine.
There is no doubt that Palestine's situation may be different
from that of Quebec but, according to the Prime Minister, there
are similarities. In the case of Palestine, the Prime Minister
says that if negotiations are no longer conducted in good faith
by Israel, Canada would be prepared to recognize a unilateral
declaration of independence, just as France seems to be prepared
to do.
In the case of Quebec, paragraph 155 provides that if Canada
refuses to negotiate in good faith, a declaration of
independence by Quebec could be recognized, including by the
international community. Is this a policy change?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here
in Canada, there is no occupied region. There is no colony, and
our situation is totally different from that of Middle East
regions. I wonder why the hon. Progressive Conservative member
fails to see the difference.
* * *
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the new auditor general's report is out and it looks
like the government is trying to outdo Rocky for bad
sequels. This time it is the Department of Finance and the
revenue agency that are starring in boondoggle four, revenge of
the bureaucrats.
His report points out that $2 billion have been mismanaged by
those two departments in the application of the scientific
research and experimental development tax credit program. Why
does the government think a $1 return for every $40 invested is a
good return on taxpayer money?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess I will have
to repeat over and over. First, there is no boondoggle in human
resources and there is no boondoggle in the revenue agency.
Second, if they would take the time and opportunity to properly
read the auditor general's report, they would see that back in
1994 a decision was taken to fix the 18 month delay in the
production of SRTED claims. At that time we received over 16,000
demands in four months.
The auditor general said that we were stuck with a political and
administrative nightmare, and we—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that nightmare has become the taxpayers' nightmare under
this government. Obviously HRDC was not an isolated incident. It
was the template for the massive abuse of taxpayer dollars by the
government.
Two billion dollars were mismanaged by finance and revenue. How
many more of these disasters do we have to discover before the
government figures out, in the words of the finance minister,
that government cannot pick winners but losers sure can pick
government?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have said
it and I will keep saying it. The SRTED program we have in Canada
is one of the best tools in the world to help economic
development in the centres and regions across the country. I
stand by that.
Second, we have been facing an administrative nightmare. When I
hear what they say on the other side of the House, I know that we
would not have such a tool. It would be a political nightmare to
have the Reform Party in government.
* * *
[Translation]
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
stakeholders from all regions of Quebec came to condemn Bill C-3,
to repeal the Young Offenders Act.
1435
It is thanks to these people if Quebec has the lowest juvenile
crime rate in North America. Following their representations,
the Minister of Justice moved amendments to Bill C-3 last
Tuesday.
Are we to understand that these amendments are the minister's
response to the opposition expressed by these stakeholders
before the committee?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we believe that our new youth
justice legislation provides a flexible framework within which
jurisdictions can implement the legislation in light of their
local needs and preferences.
As the hon. member knows, I have asked him to identify any
existing policies or programs in Quebec that could not continue
under the new legislation. So far I have not heard from him.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister realize that her amendments do not at all meet
the concerns raised by Quebec stakeholders—and there is a clear
consensus on this issue—and that the only way to meet these
concerns is to allow Quebec, by an amendment to Bill C-3, to
continue to implement the Young Offenders Act in the same
fashion?
This is what Quebec has been asking for a long time.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, Bill C-3
is a flexible piece of legislation that will permit Quebec to
continue to do those things in the area of youth justice it is
presently doing.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general reporting on the state of aboriginal
education says:
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cannot demonstrate that it
meets its stated objectives to assist aboriginal students living
on reserves in achieving their educational needs. The situation
is complex and urgent. At the current rate of progress, it will
take over 20 years for aboriginal children to reach parity in
academic achievement with other Canadians.
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. How can he look aboriginal children in the eye in
the face of such failure?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the auditor
general that in fact we are going too slow. That is why in 1998
we brought in reforms called Gathering Strength to reform the
education system.
In the next few years when we bring all these changes into the
House I hope that member votes for them, for a change.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the minister and the government are responsible for the education
of aboriginal children. They have spent over $1 billion a year
and yet this is the scathing indictment we have after that kind
of expenditure.
In 20 years the government has had 22 separate studies done yet
there is no progress made. Why should we believe that Gathering
Strength will make any difference? The auditor general has said
so himself. How can the minister possibly defend this kind of
shameful record?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the auditor
general says is that in fact the most appropriate way to achieve
our goals of having the kind of education we want for first
nations students is to give them control in their own
communities. I hope the member will vote for that when we bring
it into the House.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, whatever the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has to say about it, we
learned yesterday that labelling of GMOs will now be mandatory
in Europe.
These regulations will likely have significant consequences
exports of our agri-food products.
Can the minister tell us what he intends to do to avoid negative
consequences for our exports?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no ill effect on our
exports of individual products into the European Union.
As I reminded the House and the member yesterday, even though
the European Union has put some legislation in place it has
become very clear to it that it does not have a criterion or a
method of testing the level of content of anything that is
genetically modified. It has put legislation in place which is
not meaningful, which is not credible and which is not
enforceable.
That is not the way we are going to go. We are going to meet
that challenge before we—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
1440
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the
minister is badly informed.
Since we already have the technology in Canada to detect GMOs,
what is he waiting for to make labelling mandatory?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the European Union has admitted and
demonstrated that the level of content of genetically modified
products or commodities within a product is not detectable. It
does not have a method of doing that, and that is why it is not
able to enforce its legislation.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general in his report today slams the
government for bungling the management of the immigration
department. This mismanagement has opened the doors to organized
crime which threatens the security of our nation.
This report is almost a carbon copy of the 1990 report. The
minister and her government have had seven years to fix the
problem. Why should Canadians believe that she will fix the
problem now?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the health and security of Canadians is
my number one priority.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the minister.
Hon. Elinor Caplan: We are aware of the AG's concerns. I
want the hon. member and all members in the House to know that we
are moving forward with very significant administrative changes.
We received additional funding in the recent budget and the
legislative package. I am hoping that the member and his party
will support Bill C-31 so we can implement the legislative
changes that the auditor general recommends.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general says that more money will not fix
the problem and new legislation will not fix the problem. Better
management, better training and better auditing will.
The common theme here is the mismanagement of the government.
Her government has had seven years to fix the mess from the last
auditor general's report and it has not. How can we believe that
she will fix the problem now?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general says that the
immigration department needs additional resources. We have
received those resources in the existing budget. Those resources
will be used to update the technology that we need and for
additional controls and additional training that we need.
The new legislation I just tabled will also go a long way to
responding to the concerns of the auditor general, and I hope the
member and his party will support that legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, once
more, the auditor general is criticizing serious shortcomings at
Immigration Canada, including inadequate security of visas and
data banks. Even more worrisome is the fact that medical
screening for entry into Canada has remained unchanged for the
past 40 years.
How does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explain
that in 2000 her department is carrying out the same medical
exams as it did 40 years ago?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again that public health
and security concerns are number one priorities for my department
and for the government.
The auditor general says that we need to improve our security
screening, and we are doing that. The auditor general says that
we need to improve our medical screening, and we are doing that.
When we table the new regulations, for the first time we will
have a definition of medical inadmissibility that has been agreed
to in a consensus by all provinces. That should go a long way
toward responding to those needs.
I want the members to know that at ports of entry every
immigration officer who has a medical concern about anyone
entering Canada can require and actually demand a medical
examination.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. There are only 19 days
left for Canadians to file their 1999 income tax returns. Many
low and middle income earners know that as their incomes approach
the thresholds of new tax brackets they often pay marginal rates
of taxes as high as 50%.
This discourages people from working and reduces productivity,
lowering the potential wealth for all Canadians. What is the
minister doing to eradicate this disparity?
1445
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question from the member for Durham is significant
because we have in fact reduced the middle tax rate from 26% to
eventually 23%; significant because we are increasing the
threshold from $29,000 to $35,000 and from $59,000 to $70,000
respectively; significant because we have reindexed the entire
tax system; significant because it is evident from question
period over the last couple of months that it is only Liberal
members of parliament who want to reduce taxes for Canadians.
* * *
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about mismanagement in the solicitor
general's department where it does not just cost money but in
fact costs people their lives.
The auditor general points to the infamous Bernardo disaster
where DNA samples delayed by two years allowed him to commit four
more rapes and two more murders.
How dare this government tell Canadians that it is serious about
protecting law-abiding citizens. Its policies give licence for
Bernardo and other predators to go after law-abiding citizens.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do take the auditor general's report
very seriously. As far as DNA, they have improved dramatically
over the last number of months and by September 30 all priority
cases will be completed within 30 days.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, how can we believe that? Let us take a look at
another example in the auditor general's report. There was a 227
day delay in getting DNA samples processed in the case of a
sexual assault of a child.
The auditor is very clear: The issue is not resources, the
issue is mismanagement on the part of this government.
When will the solicitor general get serious about protecting
law-abiding Canadians?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is of course a serious issue. It is
too bad my hon. colleague does not do a little research before
asking his question.
In his first question concerning the lab for the DNA test, it
was the Ontario lab, not the federal lab. You should get your
facts straight.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would remind members to
please address their remarks always to the Chair.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the auditor general noted serious weaknesses in the economic
component of the Canada immigration program. Not only do these
shortcomings seriously limit Canada's ability to maximize the
benefits of immigration, it gives ammunition to the enemies of
immigration who would use any excuse to close the door and to
keep people out of this country.
What steps does the minister of immigration intend to take to
remedy these many criticisms, and will she concede that part of
the problem is government cutbacks that have left immigration so
starved for resources that it cannot possibly deliver a quality
product?
1450
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general acknowledged the need
for additional resources for my department. In fact, $139 million
has been allocated and, of that, $49 million in the last budget
specifically for security and health concerns.
The member opposite should know that it is the intention of the
new legislation, which I just tabled, to address many of the
other concerns. We want to close the back door to those who
would criminally abuse our system so that we can open the front
door wider to the people Canada needs to come and build this
country to prosperity.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of Indian affairs must know that one of the greatest
factors affecting the education of aboriginal students is the
inadequate housing and infrastructure.
This year's federal budget did little to address the issue. The
auditor general has indicated that if these shortfalls are not
addressed within the system, it will take 23 years for on reserve
populations to reach education parity with the overall Canadian
rate for high school.
Is the minister satisfied with that rate? Is it okay that it
will take 23 years for on reserve aboriginal populations to reach
educational parity with the rest of Canadian students?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous
answer, no, I am not satisfied and we have every intention of
changing it.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister made a personal commitment to send Canadian
forces personnel to the Middle East if asked. The Middle East is
a very dangerous theatre of operations, one that could become
extremely volatile and dangerous for Canadian soldiers.
Did either the Minister of National Defence or the CDS
personally know of and endorse the commitment before it was made?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a proud record in terms of
peacekeeping in the Middle East. In fact we have the command
position at this point in time in the Golan Heights. It is
because the United Nations knows that Canada is dependable and
can do a good job in peacekeeping. That is what the Prime
Minister was saying.
We have an interest in the Middle East and continue to have one.
We want to be of help. If the UN puts a mission together we
want to be there and be part of it, but of course we will do the
usual checks, including risk assessment, to make sure it is an
acceptable level.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
wake of the Prime Minister's decision last year to send Canadian
forces personnel to East Timor, both the minister and CDS
indicated that the military's operational tempo was too high.
Since then the government has been very cautious in making
peacekeeping commitments.
Now that Prime Minister Barak has been promised Canadian forces
peacekeepers, what changes will the Minister of National Defence
have to make to keep the Prime Minister's promise?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing consultations which
involve myself, the CDS, the Prime Minister and the Prime
Minister's office. The notion of sending peacekeepers to the
Middle East is one that I raised last fall when I was there.
We will continue to look at and assess this situation. We want
to be of help, as we have traditionally been. We have less
troops out there internationally now than we did a year ago. We
have brought it down to a more reasonable level and we are ready
to respond when the call comes.
* * *
TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Today we are in the midst of National Volunteer Week. In the
last throne speech, the Government of Canada expressed the
commitment to establish a new creative partnership with the
voluntary sector. What has the Government of Canada done to
fulfill this commitment?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is committed to renewing its relationship with the
voluntary sector.
We intend to follow up on the recommendations made in the report
entitled “Working Together”. One of the report's
recommendations was to establish a reference group of ministers.
The Prime Minister has just set up that group of reference
ministers. We had a meeting last night with the leaders of the
sectors to decide our priorities. The government intends to
answer in a national accord in the year 2001 with the voluntary
sector laying a new foundation for an active partnership.
* * *
1455
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today we learned about still another
example of human resources development's lack of trustworthiness.
According to the auditor general, the department made a
commitment to reduce waiting times for counter service and for
payments under OAS and CPP. It turned out that this was not much
of a commitment. HRDC did not even bother to check whether or
not waiting times ever got shorter.
How can Canadians believe this minister's promises given her
track record of failing to follow through?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I welcome the work of
the auditor general. I met with him to discuss the details of
the chapter that he presented today.
On balance, he talked very positively about the service delivery
methods of the department. I will quote him. He stated that
“HRDC has made considerable progress in addressing service
quality.”
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
auditor general said so himself two years ago, the operations of
Option Canada have yet to be clarified, and we still have no
idea how the $4.8 million was used.
Will the solicitor general give us the assurance that he will
act on the letter I sent him today asking to set up a police
investigation to discover where the $4.8 million given Option
Canada went?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. colleague sent
me a letter just before I left for question period. I have not
had a chance to review the letter but I will review it in due
course.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
As the minister knows, there are about 100 firefighters on
Parliament Hill today asking parliament to make changes to the
Canada pension plan so that they can qualify for early retirement
benefits at the age of 55 and full benefits at the age of 60,
instead of the current ages of 60 and 65. The minister is also
aware that the House of Commons finance committee made a similar
recommendation last fall.
In light of that, will the minister now propose an amendment to
the Canada pension plan so that firefighters can obtain benefits
at an earlier age because of this essential and dangerous
occupation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt about the tremendous debt that all
Canadians owe to firefighters right across the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Paul Martin: This particular suggestion was made
previously. We have undertaken to put it on the agenda for the
next federal and provincial finance ministers' meeting where this
kind of thing would be discussed.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today the auditor general reported that after 10 years of
discussion, the departments of Immigration and Health Canada
cannot decide if applicants should be routinely tested for
infectious diseases.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House how many more years
Canadians must wait before tests are done routinely for
infectious diseases?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general identified a need to
improve medical screening and we are doing it.
As I said, a regulation has been developed as part of the new
legislative package as a result of consensus achieved across the
country. It will be tabled when we get into clause by clause.
Members should also know that health and safety are a priority
and that is why immigration officers at the ports of entry in
Canada can request a medical test of anyone entering Canada. It
is important for everyone to know that we need to have a common
definition of medical inadmissibility so we can ensure there is
consistency in decision making.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1500
[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, be read the third time and passed, and of the
amendment.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the member for
Wentworth—Burlington.
He commented that Bill C-23 inappropriately used the term
conjugal. I agree with him. We have made the comment a number
of times in the House that not only is it inappropriate to use it
in a same sex relationship, it is also probably irresponsible not
to define it in a bill, particularly one which uses it so
frequently.
I was concerned when I understood him to say that the real
problems with the bill were generated primarily from the
bureaucracy in the justice department; that it really was not the
justice minister who was responsible for bringing forward the
bill in the manner that it is and structured as it is, with all
its inherent weaknesses which we have itemized several times, but
that the problem was really in the justice department. I find
that shocking. Is he implying, by his own volition, that the
justice minister does not have control of her department, that
she cannot call the shots over the people who work in the
ministry? Certainly that was the tone of his comments.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that there is a
certain lack of confidence that the justice department officials
will deal with these issues impartially.
In fact, what I said was that this is a very fine bill in the
sense that it does define marriage and that it does define same
sex relationships outside marriage. The unfortunate thing is
that there is a school of feeling on my own side that the
lawyers, and particularly the justice department, will not defend
this clause defining marriage when it comes up in other
legislation.
What I was trying to point out was that I think we have a
problem where we have a justice department that creates the laws,
advises the minister and then defends the laws. I think it is
fair to say that it is generally felt, there is a general feeling
on all sides of the House, that the justice department is not
always acting on behalf of parliament, but acting more on behalf
of its interpretation of the charter rather than the
interpretation of the charter as represented by the
representatives of the people.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that reply
from the hon. member and I appreciate his candour.
Certainly, it sounds to me like there are problems in that
department and that the justice minister should be the one who is
in charge. She is ultimately responsible for what comes out of
her department and she should act on that.
1505
I have noticed in Bill C-23 that the definition of common law
partner, which includes two people of the same sex in a conjugal
relationship, is repeated in every statute. In fact, it is
repeated sometimes more than once in each of the statutes under
Bill C-23. Yet the justice minister and the justice department
have deemed it not appropriate to put the definition of marriage
in every statute. It appears at the front of the bill, but it is
not in the statutes.
We have a legal opinion which says it will have no legal weight
when a court challenge comes. Therefore, is it not appropriate,
in his mind, that our amendments which were voted down by the
government yesterday should have been included? If we can
include a definition of common law partner, why not a definition
of marriage which we have been advocating all the way along?
Mr. John Bryden: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, my view is that
once you get the definition of marriage in law and once you get
the definition of same sex couples as being outside marriage in
law, that is enough.
The only reason the 19 on this side were not onside with the
government and supported the member for Scarborough Southwest was
because they are not confident that the lawyers and perhaps even
the justice department will cite this clause in Bill C-23 when
the issue of defining marriage or defining same sex partnerships
comes up. It is sad. It is wrong. It is unfortunate because we
should have confidence that the laws we pass will be applied and
will be defended adequately in the courts.
I would argue that this is one of the problems we have with the
supreme court interpreting the charter. It is not that the
supreme court is not doing its job; the real question is whether
the interests of parliament are being defended adequately before
the supreme court. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, those who are
defending the interests of parliament are the very people who
wrote the laws in the first place and are the very ones who
advised the justice minister in the first place.
What I am suggesting is that we have to re-examine the
relationship of the justice department in the creation of the
laws and the defence of the laws. I think we have to look at
this whole issue and I suggest to members opposite that maybe it
could be a motion for an opposition day. I cannot do it.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a great honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-23. I
think it is very important in terms of the kinds of measures that
the government is taking in this very important area.
I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of Justice for
putting together what I believe is a very fine piece of
legislation and one which I think Canadians, for the most part,
wherever they live in our great country, will not only respect
but also welcome. I want to indicate at the outset that I think
it is a good move and that Canadians, ultimately and
historically, will applaud the fact that we are moving in this
all important area.
I have listened to the debate on Bill C-23 over the last little
while and I have to say that some members opposite, the reformed
CRAP alliance party members, have in fact gone repeatedly—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The Speaker ruled clearly several Mondays ago, and the ruling has
been upheld repeatedly by the Speaker, that the name of our party
is Canadian Alliance, and we should—
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I said
the reformed CRAP party, the alliance people. Now, having said
that—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of
order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are not going to
get into this. The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington will go
to the text of his dissertation, and I will look after it.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, you are fair and
even-handed, as always.
What I found not so long ago was that in listening to members
opposite I was quite astonished, to put it frankly and bluntly,
at some of the misconceptions that they seem to want to
perpetuate, and the myths too. For example, I listened prior to
question period to the member for Dewdney—Alouette. I listened
to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who, when I was
speaking, talked about a barroom brawl.
Is that not interesting coming from members opposite, a barroom
brawl. I would have thought that they could do better than to be
hanging out in bars, never mind brawling.
1510
The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was quoted recently in the
Vancouver Sun. He said “A gradual blurring of the sexes
has occurred that gave young men growing up in many female
dominated single parent homes an identity crisis”. This,
according to him, has led to the rise in “militant
homosexuality”.
He went on to state that he was unable, however, to explain why
he believes that single mother families encouraged such
homosexual militancy.
Compare that to the member for Yorkton—Melville, again one of
those Alliance people with extremist views which are way out in
left field, and other right wing nonsense. He was quoted as
saying in a press release “In the 1950s buggery was a criminal
offence. Now it is a requirement to receive benefits from the
federal government”.
It was not so long ago that the party opposite made reference to
gays and blacks, saying they should be relegated to the back of
the bus. That is a direct quotation from those members. It is
amazing that these people opposite keep perpetuating that kind of
nonsense, that kind of hatred, discrimination and bigotry. I
suppose we could say it is part and parcel of who they are and
what they represent, but it is very sad that they would do that.
What I want to do, instead of focusing on the negative nonsense
of the Alliance people, no matter what they call themselves, is
to focus on the positive, which is that we on the government side
defend tolerance, compassion and caring. Unlike those people who
stand for and are representatives of the politics of extremism
and bigotry, we represent the politics of hope and
reconciliation.
That is what decent Canadians expect of their government:
caring, compassion and tolerance. That is precisely what the
Minister of Justice and the government have proceeded to do in
this very important area.
I could go on in terms of the kinds of myths that members
opposite are perpetuating. In fact, I want to do that right now.
I have listened for the last couple of days to some of the
speeches. I want to point out that Bill C-23 is not about
marriage. In fact, on this side of the House last year we
supported the motion which indicated that was not the case. To
have them rise time and time again to say that it is about
marriage is really outrageous. I do not know what kind of
political spin or cheap political shots members opposite want to
make in this area, but it really is quite unacceptable. Canadians
see through their shenanigans, duplicity and hypocrisy.
The bill is not about marriage. It is certainly not about
relationships, dependent or otherwise. It is not about sending
in the sex police, as some members have alluded to in their
convoluted way, suggesting that would occur. Rather, we on the
government side, in a positive, upbeat fashion, are saying that
into the 21st century we will define ourselves in a manner
consistent with the values of Canadians, which are tolerance and
compassion. That is why we are proceeding with Bill C-23.
It was reaffirmed by a motion of parliament last year that
marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others. We have repeated that in the bill to underscore
the point. If there are Canadians across this great country who
do not feel the way I and other members of the government do, but
rather agree with those on the opposite side, they can take
comfort from knowing that there will not be a change in this very
important area.
The proposed legislation is an omnibus bill. I know that is
well known. It takes action on a number of fronts.
Bill C-23 eliminates discrimination so that benefits and
obligations that currently apply to common law, opposite sex
couples will be extended to same sex couples as well.
1515
The bill goes on to modernize obsolete language. It repeals
provisions of obsolete laws that are no longer needed and, where
necessary, makes the kinds of modifications necessary in keeping
with the kind of required omnibus legislation that we have before
us. I believe Canadians ultimately respect this. In the process
we are putting it into a contemporary context in keeping with who
we are as Canadians as we move confidently into the 21st century.
Let me go into some detail with respect to these changes. There
are 68 laws and statutes that will be affected and over 20
departments and agencies of the federal government. Let me
highlight some of the more important changes because I think for
the record we should note them.
The term “common law partner” is a new term to law but is used
and understood by Canadians who have used the concept over time.
In the French language its equivalent is conjoint de fait. Every
day in publications and in other media across Canada, we have
heard these terms either in French or in English. I think
Canadians understand them for what they are.
Bill C-23 would standardize the definition of the term “common
law partner” as unmarried, conjugal relationships of at least
one year. Similarly, the word “spouse” after passage of the
legislation before us, would be referred consistently then to
married persons only. It should be noted that the one year
cohabitation period to qualify for benefits and subject to
obligations is not new and is not changed by Bill C-23.
Similarly, the term “conjugal” has been used in federal
legislation for 40 years to describe common law, opposite sex
relationships. The factors in determining a conjugal
relationship will be the same then for opposite sex and same sex
partners.
What we are doing is making sure that it fits into context in a
modern, contemporary sense. We are making sure that it makes
sense in all kinds of areas. I could point those out but I will
not take the time now other than to say that things as far
ranging as the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act to the War
Veterans Allowance Act will be affected in this very important
area. It goes without saying that things like the Canada pension
plan, bankruptcy and insolvency act and many other acts and
statutes will be affected in this all important area.
Where there are rights and responsibilities, there are also
obligations. It is important to note that we on the government
side have recognized these all important concepts. We have put
them into perspective. We have weighed them out and we have
thought thoroughly and clearly, hard and long about what it means
not only for us in the House, but Canadians wherever they live in
this great country of ours.
At the end of the day, we have been able to come up with a very
workable bill. This is a bill that makes a great deal of sense.
It accomplishes what the supreme court asked us to do. It
accomplishes, in my view, what Canadians expect the government to
do in this important area. In Ontario, Mr. Harris did the very
same thing within 48 hours. Why did he do that? He did it
because it made sense and it was also the right thing to do. He
did it because he knew that the supreme court judgment had to
stand.
We in this great Parliament of Canada need to follow suit. We
need to modernize and update the very legislation that is
important in this area. That is precisely what we are doing. I
believe that ultimately Canadian people will judge us as having
done the right thing.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and he
did make some very interesting references. In fact, I would like
to point out that he really showed his true colours at the
beginning of his speech by not engaging in debate, but engaging
in name calling, the lowest form of argument. When one has
nothing better to say and no logical reasoned arguments to make,
they can always resort to the lowest form of argument, name
calling. That is exactly what this member has participated in
here today and that is unfortunate.
1520
I want to ask him two very specific questions. I will be brief.
The first one has to do with a comment made by his own House
leader, the current House leader of the government, when he said
“I object to any suggestion which would have homosexual couples
treated in the same way as heterosexual couples” and he also
went on to say “I do not believe homosexuals should be treated
as families. My wife, MaryAnn, and I do not claim we are
homosexual. Why should homosexuals pretend they form a family?”
I would like to ask him if he agrees with that comment and I
would also like to ask him why he was so opposed to including the
definition of marriage in Bill C-23 which he voted against at
report stage last night.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the
allowing me the opportunity to respond.
I listen day after day in this great House of Commons to the
kind of thrust and parry that take place across the aisle and to
the new leader of the Canadian Alliance, the member for Edmonton
North. This member speaks of name calling. I watch the Leader
of the Opposition very carefully and how she mocks the ministers
and the Prime Minister, how she mocks language and speech and how
she mocks and name calls. That is just one example of how the
people opposite behave in this great House of Commons. It is
unbelievable how they behave. But Canadians see through that.
They see through the duplicity of those people who say one thing
and do another. They see through the duplicity of people with
their holier than thou attitudes who say something one way and
then, quite frankly, answer from the opposite side of their
mouths.
Let me get to the question that the hon. member asked. We on
the government side, in recognition of the sanctity of marriage,
moved along expeditiously with supporting a motion last year that
underlined what we believe, which is that marriage is the sole
union between a man and a woman. I do not know what it is about
that the hon. member does not understand. I do not know what
cheap political points he wants to score, but Canadians see
through that nonsense. They see through it every time.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member on the other
side and I have to admit he is more than one ingredient short of
the recipe.
I would like to ask the member this question. What some of us
who are opposed to this bill find difficult is to accept the
lecturing that seems to go on and that those who are opposed to
the bill are somehow opposed to democracy. I finally have had it
with being called a racist or a bigot because I cannot accept the
fact that a spouse is a member of the same sex. That is my right
and, indeed, my responsibility. I reject any attempt to try to
muzzle people, to try to intimidate us and to paint this as some
kind of human rights issue. I do not see it in that light. That
was said by the hon. member for Mississauga West, a Liberal. I
will stand up and call him a racist and bigot.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, it really is hard to answer
the member opposite when he gets up on his hind legs and behaves
the way he does.
He talks about ingredients. What kind of ingredient does he
have? Look, by the way, at his very thin skin and the fact that
he raised issues like bigotry and racism. I did not do so, but
he did. Methinks he doth protest too much.
It is really obvious who the people opposite are. Last night
was a telling vote because they are the people who talk about
grassroots participation. They are the people who talk about
free votes. Yet if we look, to a person last night, they all
voted, en masse, en bloc. Why? It was because they were all
whipped into voting the way they did. They are the people who
talk about grassroots. They are the people who talk about free
votes. What duplicity. What hypocrisy.
1525
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to follow my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in
this final part of the debate on Bill C-23, the Modernization of
Benefits and Obligations Act.
I will remind the House that this bill was introduced on
February 11, 2000 and that it is basically designed, for reasons
of equity, to modernize certain benefits and obligations in order
to guarantee that partners in a common law relationship, whether
of the same or opposite sex, are treated equally under the law.
The changes proposed in this bill must guarantee, in keeping
with the supreme court decision of May 1999 in M v H, that
same sex couples in a common law relationship have the same
advantages and the same obligations as opposite sex couples in a
common law relationship, and the same access as other couples in
Canada or Quebec to the benefits to which they have contributed.
I would like to point out that I am sharing my time with the
hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who will be speaking on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois after me.
I would also like to point out that this bill is the culmination
of multiple and long-standing efforts by people who have been
long engaged in the battle to eliminate discrimination based on
sexual orientation. This is a battle in which Quebec has played a
lead role, as it was the first to enact legislation incorporating
sexual orientation among the illegal grounds for discrimination.
It did so by amending its charter of rights and freedoms, back in
1977.
Bill C-23 is therefore the culmination of a lengthy battle by
many members of society, regardless of their own opinions about
sexual orientation or their personal choice of orientation. It
is the culmination of numerous attempts to change federal or
provincial legislation. It is also the culmination of successes
at the provincial level, for several pieces of legislation have
been passed to put an end to discrimination in various Canadian
provinces where benefits were concerned.
I think that as the debate at third reading of Bill C-23 draws
to a close it is important to remember how this legislative
saga began and to put this bill into context. Like many members of my
party, I hope it will be passed by the House of Commons.
I would remind the House that the Parliament of Canada had
decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults more
than 30 years ago, in 1969. Seven years later, in 1976, the
Immigration Act removed homosexuals from the category of persons
denied entry into Canada.
Until recently, there were hardly any other federal legislative
initiatives with respect to the legal aspects of homosexuality.
Numerous private member's bills to prohibit discrimination based
on orientation were introduced in the House of Commons between
1980 and 1992, but none of them made it past first reading.
Nor did the proposed amendments to other statutes with a view to
eliminating certain forms of discrimination based on sexual
orientation succeed either.
In December 1992, then Minister of Justice Kim Campbell
introduced Bill C-108, which would have added sexual orientation
to the prohibited grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act and
defined a married individual in strictly heterosexual terms.
1530
The purpose of Bill S-15, introduced in the Senate by Senator
Noel Kinsella, was to add sexual orientation to the prohibited
grounds in the same Canadian Human Rights Act. This bill was
passed in June 1993.
However, when parliament was dissolved in September 1993, after
a general election was called, this bill, as well as Bill C-108,
died on the order paper.
In 1995, parliament passed Bill C-41, an act to amend the
criminal code.
The bill provided that evidence establishing that a crime was
motivated by hate or by bias based on a number of personal
characteristics was an aggravating circumstance that should lead
to the imposition of a harsher sentence.
The inclusion of sexual orientation in these personal
characteristics generated a great deal of opposition. That was
in part due to the opinion expressed by some that this would
lead to the inclusion of the sexual orientation as a prohibited
ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, or
that it would otherwise lead to the erosion of traditional
family values.
In spite of that opposition, Bill C-41 received royal assent in
July 1995 and came into effect the following year, in September 1996.
In February of the same year, just a few months before the
coming into effect of Bill C-41, Senator Noël Kinsella came back
with Bill S-2, which was similar to Bill S-15 and which sought to
add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination
under section 3 of the federal act, and under section 16, which
deals with equal access or affirmative action. The bill was
adopted by the Senate in April 1996.
I should also mention a private member's bill, Bill C-265,
introduced by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, whom I salute for
the personal fight that he has been leading on these issues—
which did not go beyond first reading stage in this House.
On April 29, 1996, the Liberal government of the day, through
the Minister of Justice at the time, introduced Bill C-33 to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by adding sexual orientation
to the list of illegal grounds of discrimination based on sexual
orientation. This bill was finally passed by both the House of
Commons and the Senate and received royal assent on June 20,
1996.
I must also not fail to mention the efforts of my colleague, the
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, or party's critic for these
matters. He too introduced bills in November 1994, May 1996 and
again in February 1998 and March 1999 to end this discrimination
in federal legislation. These bills, like many private members'
bills, came to nought.
Today we reach the final stage of the passage of this bill. Its
passage follows on the unanimous adoption by the National
Assembly of Quebec of a bill with similar goals amending various
legislative provisions pertaining to common law spouses and
putting an end to the discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation found in the laws of Quebec. Ontario has done the
same thing.
It is therefore high time that the Parliament of Canada, and
this House of Commons in particular, followed the path taken by
other lawmakers, that is the path of equality, and gave real
meaning to the concept of equality contained in our charters.
1535
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I understand
that he is a man with considerable academic credentials.
I have presented petitions in the House from people in Quebec
who have asked for the definition of marriage to be reaffirmed in
statute. I also have in my hand a legal opinion from a senior
counsel in Toronto who has basically said that the approach to
define marriage as a union of a man and woman at the front end of
an omnibus bill but not in the statute will not bring into force
any legally binding definition of marriage.
Based on the petitions from Quebec and the attempts of the
official opposition to put the definition of marriage in the
statutes where it will have significant legal effect and express
the will of the House, would the member condone this? If so,
would he support the motion that this bill be referred back to
the justice committee to consider including a meaningful
definition of marriage in the statutes that the bill addresses?
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say to the
member that it should be noted that in Quebec, as elsewhere in
Canada and indeed in the world, there are various positions on
the equality of persons with different sexual orientations,
which are sometimes rooted in religious beliefs and sometimes in
prejudices that a healthy upbringing could perhaps eliminate.
These differences must be noted, but the will of parliaments
here and elsewhere in the world to end discrimination must not
be thwarted.
I believe that this bill is the culmination of many efforts made
by those with the most interest in these issues, those who have
often been the victims of discrimination. This bill will
finally give them true access to equality and the right to
benefits they have been denied.
The question of marriage and its definition is touched on in
this bill. The Liberal government has decided to include an
interpretation clause that may be along the lines of recognizing
that marriage is reserved for opposite sex couples. This debate
will have to continue. It is one that the Canadian Alliance
will perhaps, and quite legitimately, wish to pursue.
As for us, the fact that this question is not necessarily
definitively resolved in this bill should not prevent us—at least
not most of us—from being in favour of a restorative bill that
will grant a too-long-denied equality on same sex couples.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that my colleague opposite comes from the
civil code tradition but perhaps he could explain to our
colleague from Calgary Centre that the definition of marriage
already exists in common law, which has the full force and effect
of legislation passed by the House. It was unanimously endorsed
by the House of Commons and is being reaffirmed in the bill now
before the House. Maybe he could explain that to our colleague
from Calgary Centre.
1540
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, it is true that marriage is
defined in both the Civil Code of Quebec and Canadian common
law. This is a definition that can evolve, that has evolved in
other national jurisdictions, that can do so here in Canada, and
in Quebec.
I would like, however, to be able to believe that the whole
issue of the definition of marriage, even if addressed in this
bill, will continue to be debated. I believe that our societies
are undergoing such changes that not only will common law unions
be recognized but also that partnerships between persons of the
same sex will be given more formal recognition.
In my opinion, this is debate that is not over.
It ought not to be, because there are those who support a more
formal recognition of common law unions between persons of the
same sex. There are others who wish to see marriage reserved
for people of opposite sexes.
The debate will progress as our society progresses. I trust
that this change will take place within the context of respect
for institutions and also of respect for convictions. I hope
that it will, above all, take place with respect for the
equality of men and of women.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I would like to explain the nature and the purpose of
this bill. There are those who would have us think it covers a
much broader range of situations than is actually the case.
This bill has nothing to do with marriage or adoption.
Basically, for reasons of fairness, it seeks to amend certain
benefits or obligations so that couples living in common law
relationships, whether those relationships are same sex or
opposite sex, are treated equally before the law. That is the
essential purpose of this bill.
All that the proposed amendments do is give effect to the May
1999 supreme court decision in M and H. The purpose of the bill
is to amend 68 statutes so as to include same sex couples in the
definition of common law couples.
In the past 20 years, most provincial governments in Canada have
brought in legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation. The adoption of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms changed the legal framework with respect to
the equality rights of homosexuals.
I wish to note that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
was based heavily on the Quebec charter, which preceded it.
Already in 1977, that charter specifically prohibited
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The legal aspects of sexual orientation have to do with two main
principles: first, prohibiting discrimination in order to
protect gays and lesbians against discriminatory actions;
second, recognizing homosexual relationships, which implies
granting the partners in these couples the benefits and
guarantees enjoyed by unmarried heterosexual couples.
This bill is therefore not about the institution of marriage,
even though an amendment was made to specify that the word
“marriage” means the lawful union of one man and one woman. I
do not see the point of that provision, but if it can reassure
some people, fine.
It seeks to prohibit and eliminate the most pernicious forms of
discrimination based on the individual characteristics of a group
or an individual, including race, language, religion, but also
sexual orientation.
The bill recognizes that society finds it unacceptable that
certain groups not be treated fairly, including when it comes to
social benefits and guarantees.
The fact that the bill includes sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination does not mean that
homosexuality is either condoned or condemned, but rather that we
are concerned about providing legal protection to individuals.
1545
It should be noted that the proposed amendments are not all one
sided. They will provide new benefits to same sex couples, while
also imposing new obligations on them.
Here are a few examples. In the area of taxation, the total
household income will be taken into account for the purposes of
the child tax benefit, which was not the case before. The incomes
of both spouses will also be taken into account to determine
eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement.
Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, same sex couples will
be subjected to the same restrictions regarding the transfer of
properties or of their goods before declaring bankruptcy.
In the Canada Business Corporations Act, the prohibition against
a shareholder, an associate or an administrator receiving
financial assistance from a company will extend to same sex
partners.
In the Bank Act, with respect to conflict of interest, the
partner of a director will be taken into account.
In the Canada Elections Act, a returning officer cannot appoint
a partner as a deputy returning officer.
In the Trust and Loan Companies Act, same sex partners are
included in connection with additional fines the court may
impose on the partner of a person convicted of an offence under
the act who has acquired any monetary benefit.
These are obligations that did not exist. There will be
benefits, but obligations as well, so that these people will be
treated as are all citizens of Canada.
There is nothing unique or revolutionary about this bill. I was
saying that it arose out of many supreme court decisions. All
of these cases were won by those who had brought them before the
court. We are confronted to fact and law.
Since 1997, a number of provinces have acted, including British
Columbia. They have amended their laws to include partners of
the same sex. In June 1999, for example, Quebec amended 28 laws
and 11 regulations to give same sex couples the benefits and
obligations as opposite sex couples living in a common law
partnership. In October 1999, Ontario, under Mike Harris,
passed an omnibus bill amending 67 laws in accordance with a
supreme court decision. I think this reflects a realistic
attitude.
Seven provinces, the three territories and the federal
government have passed legislation granting same sex survivor
pensions to their employees.
This is also the case for major Canadian cities in any region,
British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, the maritimes,
for more than 200 Canadian companies in the private sector,
hospitals, libraries, social service institutions and banks.
This is therefore a strong trend, if I can put it that way,
aimed at adaptation to the modern world, to today's situation,
to what we are experiencing today, to what we know exists even
if some people want to hide its existence. This is a reality
that cannot be made to disappear.
Polls confirm, moreover, that the public wants to see an end to
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
A 1998 Angus Reid poll reported 74% of respondents were in
favour of federal benefits to same sex couples; 67% of
respondents were of the opinion that same sex couples should
receive the same benefits and also have the same obligations as
common law spouses; 84% believed gays and lesbians should be
protected from discrimination.
As these results show, this bill meets the expectations of the
public, who feel that discrimination based on sexual orientation
is inappropriate. This bill proposes some concrete measures
that go beyond declarations of good intentions. Going beyond
sexual orientation, this legislation gives equal treatment to
every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation.
I dealt with this situation some fifteen years ago when I was a
union negotiator.
In 1986, I believe I signed the first collective agreement, in
Quebec anyway, giving same sex couples the same benefits as
opposite sex couples. This trend has continued, with the result
that in the hotel industry, the sector in which I was
negotiating at the time, most owners of hotels in Quebec
recognize this reality. And this did not entail huge costs
because these people pay taxes just like you and I do.
1550
Once again, this is not a bill about sexuality or marriage—it is
a bill about equity. I understand that some people are hesitant
because of some of their values, often rooted of course in
religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of some must not
become the law governing others.
Religion is an individual affair for which I have the greatest
respect, but it must not be imposed on others. On occasion, we
must recognize values that we do not necessarily share but that
are held by others who in no way interfere with or denounce our
beliefs.
In this sense, I think that this bill corrects the injustices we
are now experiencing and have experienced for a long time. I
believe it is time that we brought our laws into line with
reality and the readiness of Canadians and Quebecers to accept
those whose orientation is different but who are making a
contribution to our society, just as they, I and we all do.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am really pleased to have this opportunity today to contribute
to the debate on Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and
obligations act.
This omnibus legislation is about fairness and about equality
for all people in common law relationships, but since it still
does not seem to be fair to some members of the House, I will
take this opportunity to state what this bill is about and how we
got to where we are now.
At its core, this bill is about ending discrimination. The
courts have made it clear that benefits and obligations extended
to common law opposite sex couples must be extended to common law
same sex couples.
Recent court and tribunal cases under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act have found
that federal policies and programs discriminate unfairly on the
basis of sexual orientation.
On May 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the issue
of spousal support in the case of M. v H. The spousal support
provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act were found to be in
violation of the charter and that they unfairly denied same sex
unmarried couples legal treatment available to opposite sex
unmarried couples.
After the M. v H. decision, the government of Ontario was given
six months to amend its family law legislation. Following M. v
H., most of the other provincial jurisdictions also announced
that they too would amend their laws to gain compliance.
The purpose of the bill before the House today is to ensure
equal treatment in federal legislation for same sex and opposite
sex common law couples, while preserving the clear legal
distinction between unmarried couples and married persons.
The bill uses the term spouse or common law partner, in French
un époux ou conjoint de fait, where no neutral term could be
found, such as survivor. The terms common law partner and
conjoint de fait are defined and include both opposite and same
sex couples.
Bill C-23 amends 68 statutes to ensure they encompass common law
opposite sex couples and extend benefits and obligations granted
to common law opposite sex couples to same sex couples and their
family members.
This omnibus bill is about benefits and obligations. The
following are a few examples of some of the benefits and
obligations. It is useful to remind people that this is the
substantive part of this bill.
Under the Old Age Security Act, a low income married person or a
common law opposite sex partner may claim a guaranteed income
supplement which is determined on the combined income of both
spouses or partners. Bill C-23 would provide that eligibility to
GIS for a common law same sex partner, based again on the
combined income of both partners.
Under the Canada Pension Plan, the surviving spouse in a
marriage, or the surviving partner in a common law opposite sex
relationship, may qualify for survivor benefits, based on his or
her spouse's or partner's contributions to the plan.
Bill C-23 will provide that in similar circumstances. The
surviving partner in a common law same sex relationship would
also qualify for survivor benefits based on his or her partner's
contributions to the plan.
1555
Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, there is a limit to the
ability of married persons to transfer ownership of their home or
property to their spouse prior to declaring bankruptcy. Bill
C-23 will provide that that common law opposite sex and same sex
partner will be subject to the same limitations on transferring
ownership of their home or property to their partner prior to
declaring bankruptcy.
Clearly Bill C-23 should be endorsed by all parties for it is a
necessary piece of legislation. It has already been entrenched
in provincial legislation and it is an end to discrimination and
bringing fairness. That is something that all Canadians should
support.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak on this bill
again. I have been listening with some interest to comments from
the other side of the House about how this legislation is going
to undermine marriage and families. Mr. Speaker, if you tried to
book a church or a hotel in this city or in any city across
Canada for a wedding in less than a year, I think you would know
that the institution of marriage is alive and well and thriving
in Canada.
Members opposite have made the argument that only people married
should be entitled to benefits and that the purpose of benefits,
pension plans, health plans and so on is to assist in supporting
a family with children. I think that proposition would lead most
people who contribute to benefits ineligible for those benefits.
It would exclude any family, like mine, that has already had
their children and no longer able to have children. It would
exclude any married couple that does not wish to have children,
does not plan to have children or is unable to have children. It
would exclude anyone who does not fit the very narrow definition
of the traditional family, that does not represent the majority
of families in this country.
During the debate members opposite have stated that Bill C-23 is
further evidence of this government's anti-family agenda. This
kind of hyperbole may make good sound bytes and good headlines,
but it does not make a lot of common sense.
Let us look at the provisions of Bill C-23. A member opposite
made a reference this morning to “good families”. This
member's definition of a good family is a mother and father who
are married and have children. Everyone else is excluded from
what is a family.
I ask the hon. member, what about lone parent families? What
about couples without children, families where the parents are
common law partners, either opposite sex or same sex? Are these
bad families by inference? I do not think so. I think most of
them have the same commitments as those who happen to be married,
to look after each other, to share with each other and to
contribute to their community.
The government recognizes that there are many types of families
in this country. This government's agenda supports families and
does not make distinctions between what is a good or a bad
family.
A significant number of the provisions of Bill C-23 have been
drafted to allow common law partners, either same sex or opposite
sex, to name each other as beneficiaries in their pension plans,
pension plans I remind the members opposite, which they
contribute to either as employees or as taxpayers. These
provisions in Bill C-23 do not take away existing benefits from
other couples from what would fit the opposition's definition of
a good family. They will not take away pension provisions for
children. In fact, these amendments will provide additional
protection for children whose parents are in common law
relationships.
1600
Bill C-23 will encourage common law couples, both opposite sex
and same sex, to plan for the financial future of their partners,
reducing the burden on the state when people are left destitute.
How can encouraging people in committed, caring relationships to
look after each other be a threat to the family?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it repeals the last few
remaining references in federal law to illegitimate children?
What a horrendous reference. I give great credit to my colleague
from Ottawa Centre for introducing a private members' bill on
this subject, to remove that horrible term from all federal
legislation. It is finally done in Bill C-23. It has finally
put every child on the same footing in this society.
I do not see how Bill C-23 can be anti-family when it amends a
provision in the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal Act that
will allow common law partners to be included in the list of next
of kin who may receive a medal on behalf of a partner who is
awarded a medal posthumously. How is amending that provision
anti-family?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family when it removes from the Bills of
Exchange Act antiquated reference to “his wife, his clerk or his
servant” or the obsolete reference to the “father, son or
brother of a master” which currently appears in the section from
the Trade Unions Act which is being repealed in this bill?
How is Bill C-23 anti-family by amending the Bridges Act to
clarify that common law partners may also be included in the list
of persons who can establish a claim in the event of an injury or
death of a partner on a bridge? How is it anti-family when it
amends the Carriage By Air Act by adding common law partners to
the list of persons who can sue an air carrier for damages when
there is a death of a passenger?
These are only a few of the examples of the provisions in Bill
C-23. Where is the threat to Canadian society when we encourage
people in this legislation to have a mutual relationship of care
and interdependence? I think that strengthens society.
The bill does not take away from society or families; rather it
encourages people to look after each other by extending both
benefits and obligations. It is about fairness and tolerance.
Anybody who thinks this bill is anti-family either has not read
the legislation or chooses to misunderstand and misrepresent it.
During the course of this debate we have heard comments that are
both hurtful and hateful. I regret that very much because I do
not think those kinds of comments toward anybody who is not
married represent the views of most Canadians or of most members
of the House of Commons.
We have before us legislation that further extends fairness and
equality of treatment in our society. That is an advance for
society and for families. It is not a retrograde step.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great
interest. She made some valid points.
There is one I would like her to address. Many people consider
and certainly many have petitioned the House and written letters
to all of us that in many ways marriage is the initial foundation
for families. Empirically the government's own report, the
longitudinal study on children and family, showed that children
do best when they are raised in a marriage between a man and a
woman.
It is interesting that this bill does include a definition of
marriage at the front end. Unfortunately because of where it is
placed, according to expert legal opinion, it will not have any
force or effect. Therefore the official opposition, the Canadian
Alliance party, brought in a number of amendments to enact the
definition of marriage for each of the particular acts referred
to in the bill.
1605
Parliament would be giving a clear indication of its intention
to the courts and to the public at large. It would change this
bill from being mute or saying nothing on the definition of
marriage to the courts when the challenges come to redefine
marriage. In fact there are some cases in the court system
already that will be before the supreme court before long. By
putting the definition of marriage right into the statutes, which
is what we wanted, we would actually be sending a clear message
that we have a positive position on what the proven best
foundation for family is, and that is marriage.
I would ask the hon. member that if it is good enough to put in
the preamble, why is it not good enough to put in the statutes?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the member made two
points and I would like to reply to him on both.
The law is quite clear and has existed for 150 years in common
law. It is exactly what marriage is and the House reaffirmed
that definition within the last year. It is merely being
emphasized, and not changed, by being put in the preamble of the
current legislation. As a good legislator I do not like to be
redundant. If we already have law, we do not have to have more
law that says the same thing.
The hon. member also referred to the study on children. It is
important to note that we have children in our society in all
kinds of family situations who have problems. We put far too
much emphasis, and the party opposite is the worst for doing it
in my view, on punishing children when they get into trouble with
the law rather than supporting and helping children whatever
their family situations.
We have to pay a lot more attention to young children in our
communities. As communities we have to be far more supportive of
the development of children and of the families that raise them,
and perhaps particularly of lone parent families who have extra
stresses on them. One parent may be trying very hard with an
inadequate income to raise children and deal on his or her own
with all the pressures of parenthood. They are not getting
enough support from their society.
Perhaps the party opposite with its new name would want to take
a new approach to children who do get into trouble that deals
with helping and supporting them, rather than punishing them when
it has gone too far. Denying them benefits as children within
whatever kind of family does not contribute to help those
children grow up well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak Bill C-23, the modernization
of benefits. I would like to share my time with the hon. member
for Elk Island which means that I have only 10 minutes to put
together what I think is a strong argument for sending this bill
back to committee for further study and input. I would like to
quickly go through that.
First, this bill is an example of a very lousy way to develop
public policy. Imagine a bill as broad as this one which affects
68 or 69 different statutes and debate has been limited both here
in the House and in committee. That is not a good way to develop
public policy.
Second, limiting the number of witnesses who could appear before
committee is a very poor way to develop a policy initiative that
is going to have broad ramifications for years to come. It is a
poor way to develop policy and it was done with this bill by the
Liberals. It will be to the detriment of this bill in the long
run for not having heard from people from all walks of life.
It is interesting that when the government wants to trot out the
finance minister's prebudget tour, it sets aside $500,000 and all
kinds of time in the House and on the road to talk about whatever
the finance minister may want to talk about. However, when it
comes to substantive policy initiatives, such as this one, the
committee is told to stay here and not to hear from the people
who may want to make presentations. The government is going to
ram the bill through and Canadians are going to have to live with
it.
1610
Third, there is a refusal to acknowledge provincial interests in
the bill. The government would not even listen to provincial
ministers who had interests in the bill. It would not even
consider their concerns on the implications that this would have
on provincial interests. It is always a mistake to ram
legislation through that does not take provincial interests into
account.
Finally, this is a big issue. A bill that will impact on
society as much as this one will should have been preceded by a
broad public policy debate and initiative to discuss the roles of
the government, the private sector, individuals, the family, the
charitable sector and other sectors in the society to come. When
we talk about 21st century society, these things should have been
discussed as a preamble or philosophical underpinning on any
future policy debates with as much impact as this one. None of
that broad policy debate took place. Instead, we were handed
this as a done deal and told we would have to live with it.
It is interesting that most of Canada's public policy
initiatives came after the second world war, such as the Canada
pension plan, our health system, maternity benefits and a whole
realm of social benefits. If we think about it, the 1940s was a
different era in Canadian and world history. I am talking about
where public policy initiatives should go in the next century.
However we are talking about an old system based on the 1940s and
the government wants to add another category or two and continue
on with the same old set of benefits, and they are old.
The public policy initiatives and interests in this type of a
bill should be debated. I am very disappointed the government
chose not to have that discussion. We could have settled a lot
of issues about who should and who should not get benefits based
on public interest in this bill and in many others.
This is such a poorly crafted bill that it should be rejected.
It is interesting that throughout this debate the government has
failed to adequately define terms, such as conjugal relationship.
The courts will decide one day, as they have so often been forced
to do because of poorly defined terms, poorly drafted legislation
and frankly, the lack of political will on the Liberal side to
take a definite position and give it to the courts. Instead the
Liberals say that it is a toughie so they will hide behind the
courts.
I do not blame the courts. They will have to rule on this, as
they should. They will come back and say that because it is so
poorly defined they will put the definitions in place. What a
poor way to craft legislation that will affect all Canadians for
years to come. The Liberals throw up their hands and say that
the courts are better qualified than the House of Commons. That
is a shame. Lawyers are going to have a heyday. Mark my words,
there will be case after case in the courts for years to come.
Evidence that it is a poorly drafted bill is the last minute
attempt to define marriage in the preamble of Bill C-23. The
minister came to committee, tossed in the definition and said
“How about this definition, what do you think of it?” The
definition is fine enough and one which the Reform Party now the
Canadian Alliance, supports. However, it was strictly a public
relations exercise. It does not affect any of the 68 or 69
statutes that are going to be amended. What it does is it allows
the government to stick out its chest and say that it has made a
small change.
As far as the actual statutes are concerned, there is no change.
There is no emphasis on marriage in those statutes. In years to
come when we open any of the some 60 statutes, we will not be
able to find a single reference to marriage. That is a serious
error. It is okay to have it in an omnibus bill but when the
courts, the lawyers and departments get involved no one will find
those words defining marriage in any of those statutes.
That is a huge failure and another sign of a poorly drafted bill.
1615
Finally, there is the refusal to include amendments of
substance. My colleague who has been shepherding the bill
through the House asked if it was good enough for the preamble of
the bill why was it not put in the statutes. Instead of an
answer from over there we get absolutely nothing from the
government. The truth is that it does not want to put it in
because it does not want to give it substance. That is a shame.
The government is going to ask the courts to decide. It is
going to ask some bureaucrats to try and fish the information out
of somewhere, I guess out of a black hole. The truth is that it
refused our amendments and amendments from its own members
because it did not want those amendments to see the light of day.
How does a bill that has been so poorly developed, that has had
such little debate and has had such a low priority with
Canadians, receive such a high priority with the government? That
is a question we should ask today.
Would it not have been better to introduce a whole package of
measures for which Canadian families have been clamouring? This
bill was not in the Liberals red book. It was not on the
campaign trail. It was not in any of their literature. It just
came out of nowhere.
Instead of addressing the concerns of Canadians, for some reason
the bill is big enough and of high enough importance that the
Liberals had to get it through the House. They had to push it
through using every procedural trickery they could get away with.
What is going on? Why did they not make the tax regime fair so
that families and not the taxman make decisions about their
children and how they should be raised? Why did they not do
that? They did not.
It is interesting that every significant issue related to family
and marriage has been brought forward by the opposition as a
supply day motion in the House, and nothing has come from the
Liberals. A motion which said that the federal tax system should
be reformed to end discrimination against single income families
with children was defeated by the Liberals.
We managed to get the definition of marriage through, but
imagine all the crying and complaining on that side about how it
was a divisive and terrible thing to be debating. We brought
that forward. We were proud to bring it forward because it ended
up being the definition the minister used in her own amendment.
We had to bring it forward.
We had to say that health care should take priority over
government grants. That was this spring. They defeated it. They
want more government grants and less health care. It does not
matter what are the issues. It could be the Sharpe case or
protecting our children. They would not do it even though their
own backbenchers asked them to do it.
The opposition side, which will be the government one day, said
that we should be dealing with it and the government said no
thanks. I have been here for seven years and the Young Offenders
Act is still in committee. We still are not protecting children.
The drunk driving bill is still lost in the black hole. The
consecutive sentencing issue was never brought forward by the
government. It was brought forward by a backbencher.
Conditional release, victims rights, at every stage when we are
looking after the family and trying to give families priority
from this side of the House, it is opposed by that side.
Why is that? Where are the priorities of government members
coming from? I do not understand. They are running scared, it
seems, not just from the courts but from Canadian public opinion,
not wanting to deal with the issues which Canadians hold close to
their hearts.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have heard members on the government's side and from
other parties talk about the different kinds of situations in
which people raise children today.
I think that is reality. I am the first to congratulate parents
who raise their children in all these various types of
situations, from a single parent to any other imaginable
situation. I congratulate them for raising their children under
what is often less than ideal circumstances.
When members opposite comment on this, do they believe that the
ideal situation in which to raise children is to have them in a
home where there is one male and one female parent? If they
believe that is the ideal, is it not at least a laudable goal of
government to try to accommodate that ideal? I am not saying to
try to promote that ideal. I am just saying to try to
accommodate it at least in law.
That is a question I would appreciate all members on the
government side who speak on the bill to answer.
1620
Does the member for Fraser Valley East believe that the bill
helps accommodate what I believe is an ideal situation? Others
may feel differently about the mom, dad and kids scenario, but
has the government tried to accommodate the situation I see as
ideal in the tax laws? It is certainly not the only acceptable
situation, not reality in many cases, but the ideal. Has the
government through the various legislation the member has seen
come before the House tried to accommodate that ideal?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer that
question. In our caucus we analyze every bill that comes before
us. One question we ask is how it will affect the family. It is
not the only question we ask. We also ask how it will affect the
economy and how will it affect the environment. We ask a series
of questions as we do our analyses.
One of the questions we feel is proper to ask is how it affects
the family. Does it somehow strengthen the family? A family is
anyone related by blood, marriage or adoption. We are not trying
to have a restrictive definition of a family, but we are saying
that there is a role in government to enhance families.
When we analyze the bill we do not see how it is strengthening
families. We have not been able to analyze how it will do that.
As I said earlier it is worthy of broad debate, which I think
should have preceded the bill, on what is the public policy
interest in the bill or in any other social service bill and
whether we can demonstrate that it will be of benefit to society.
As the member for Lakeland already mentioned, there is a
demonstrable benefit to giving parents the maximum freedom to
raise their children in the way they see fit. For example, why
are single income families making $60,000 a year penalized under
the current tax system, discriminated against and told that if
they put their children in registered day care they will get a
tax break? However, if they choose to use Aunt Bessy or grandma
or someone to look after their kids, they do not get any help.
There is no tax benefit for them because they have made a choice.
The taxman tells them whether or not they will get a benefit. It
is not up to them to look after their kids the way they want. If
they are put in registered day care they are given a tax break,
but if they are looked after within the family unit they do not
get any help. What kind of a law is that?
Surely parents have the best interest of their children in mind.
They base their decision on many circumstances. Their desire to
go to work, their necessity to go to work, the closeness of their
family, the closeness of day care services, and all kinds of
other factors are taken into account. Based on those factors
they decide to raise their kids whatever way they choose. They
may choose to look after them at home.
However, under the Liberal regime the taxman says that it is not
up to families to make that decision. It is up to the taxman to
make that decision, who makes it impossible for them to look
after their kids in that way unless they choose the way they are
told to raise their families. That is wrong. That is why the
Canadian Alliance says it should be up to individuals and
families to make the decision, not up to the revenue minister.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I am honoured to be able to participate in this debate. I am a
dad. I am a grandpa. I have four wonderful grandchildren.
Today is a very special day for our family. April 11, 1935, was
the date that my parents pledged to each other to live together
for as long as they lived. They are today celebrating their 65th
wedding anniversary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1625
Mr. Ken Epp: It is 65 years of wedded bliss, according to
my dad. I am just kidding.
An hon. member: It seems like much longer.
Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, it seems like longer. Anyway, I want
to take a few seconds to thank my parents. When I think of the
family in which I grew up, we had parents who loved each other,
who loved us, and we knew it.
I have related in the House before the story of the day when I
was guilty of a serious transgression, having gone with some of
my older cousins to an abandoned house and broken all the
windows. I cannot believe I did it but there I was, a little
nine or ten year old.
My father, and I just love him for it, took the time to take me
to the man who owned that house and to hold me accountable. I
had to ask that man to forgive me for what I had done. Dad also
required that for the next three or four years all the money I
earned went to pay for the damage. He held me accountable and I
thank him for that.
We saw the love that our parents demonstrated to each other and
to us, the level of discipline that requires, and the level of
very loving discipline they gave their children. It would have
been almost impossible for my brother and I to have grown up to
be criminals. It would have been impossible because we just saw
the opposite so richly modelled.
I remember, again just thinking of my parents on their
anniversary today, how often they reached out to help other
people in need. We were always participants in it. I do not
have the time today to talk about the details, but we had a
tremendous example in our home.
For about the last 20 years my mother used to pray that she and
my father would outlive my invalid sister. I have talked about
her in the House too. When she passed away just a couple of
weeks ago, it was a tremendously emotional time for our family.
While we were saying goodbye to our sister whom we loved so
dearly, we were also saying thanks to mom and dad for all those
years of being faithful to the trust they had to make sure that
she was looked after. It was my mother's heart that said “Lord,
we want to outlive Marion so that we can make sure that she is
looked after”. The Lord granted that request, and for that my
family is very grateful.
When I say that in preamble to my comments today, I am saying
that strong families are indeed the backbone of a good and
healthy society. I do not in any way apologize for that. I not
ashamed of the fact that the ideal is a mom and dad loving each
other for life. They nurture and care for their children. They
make sure that they are looked after physically and that they
have a very strong upbringing. The children are taught to care
for others, to love one another and to forgive one another when
we err, as we all do. They have that strong foundation.
As some of my colleagues have mentioned, I would be much better
pleased if the Government of Canada would just spend some real
time making sure that government policy was supportive of that
ideal instead of doing what it does.
As my colleague who just spoke indicated, often the decisions of
the government are negative for families. We have families who
are literally struggling financially. They cannot make ends
meet. They both have to go to work to pay their taxes and to try
to provide for their children. I cannot for the life of me
figure out why the government cannot have as a tax policy a
special break for families that are providing the absolute best,
an ideal environment for the upbringing of their children.
1630
I know that I and other members of my party have been subject to
quite a bit of negative comment because of our stand. I would
like to put that to rest.
There have been accusations of our hatred and many other
terribly negative comments. Nothing could be further from the
truth. I have to say that I have absolutely no interest
whatsoever in showing any lack of support for people. That is
what life is all about. It is about family. It is about
friends. It is about life, and it is about love. I reject
outright their accusations.
In saying that, I would also like to add that some of the things
the Liberal members opposite have said about us have been
hurtful. We are tempted to yell back and say “You are just not
right”. But because of the heavy emotional things which have
gone on in my life in the last couple of months, and pardon me if
my voice breaks a bit, I am really hurt by them. I do not care
whether it hurts me, but that a member can look at another person
and make an accusation so flippantly about presumed attitudes or
the presumed motivations of other people, without knowing the
facts, is not good for us. I really wish that Liberal and other
members would not do that.
Undoubtedly, I have concerns with this bill. That does not mean
I do not want to reach out a helping hand to those who have
genuine need. It is just the opposite. In fact, if I have one
major criticism of this bill, it is that it is passed off as
bringing equality when in fact it will not. All it will do, in
true Liberal style, is bring in another group to be included in
the circle, to the exclusion of all others. I reject that.
I know of a number of people who have cared for and lived with
each other for years and years. There is nothing in this bill
for them. There is nothing here about equality.
I am thinking about two of my friends, two sisters who never
married. They lived together with their mother for many years,
until their mother died, and then they kept on living together in
their house. I assure the House that there was never any
conjugal relationship between them. Does the government
recognize their need for sharing their benefits? No. No, it
picks out one group and says that this is all about equality. It
is not. It is about the group it has chosen, and that group
right now happens to be people living together in homosexual
relationships. That is what this bill is all about.
I also have heard over and over that this bill has nothing to do
with marriage. That is interesting. I wondered if it did, so I
opened it and I was absolutely amazed to find that one of the
very first words in the bill was “marriage”. That was before
the amendment.
The short title states:
Clause 2 amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.
Subclause 2(1)(ii) states:
It goes on from there.
The government says it is not about marriage. The very first
word is “marriage”. In fact, it is about marriage. It is
about a relationship. The government is referring to two people
living together in a relationship which is similar to marriage.
That is what it is doing, in effect.
I can assure the House that neither my parents' marriage nor my
marriage will be threatened by this bill. Absolutely not. But
in a way it does change the meaning of marriage when couples
living in relationships which are not marriages are treated
exactly the same. Then, indeed, the practising definition of
marriage will change.
I regret that my time is up, because I could have gone on.
1635
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to comment because the member for Elk Island
referred to what we are doing as bringing another group of people
into the circle.
When the circle is Canadian society and we are talking about
people who have for too long lived in the shadows and on the
fringes of society, does the member not believe that bringing
more people into the light and into the circle of Canadian
society would be positive, not negative? Does he not think that
bringing people into the circle of the Canadian family would
strengthen society, strengthen Canada, and would allow people to
live full and complete lives as accepted members of society,
rather than being seen as pariah and somehow outside the
mainstream?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed thought about
this question over the last six years since I became a member of
parliament. I remember often discussing this topic. It seems to
me that it comes up every time the Liberals are in some sort of
public relations fiasco. They come up with another bill on same
sex benefits and they keep talking about equality, widening the
circle and so on.
In every case the Liberals have added to the list. That is not
what spells equality. To me, the list is not complete until
everyone is on it. I do not know why they insist on simply
adding to the list. Why do they not come up with a policy that
looks at needs?
There are many examples. One example is the case of the natives
in this country. We try to accommodate the way in which they
have been mistreated and mishandled for so many years by giving
them special benefits based on their race.
Would we not be better off if we looked at the needs and
provided for people based on need, as opposed to race, colour or
other characteristics?
The list will not be complete until everyone is on it. I might
also add, parenthetically, even fat people.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the member for Elk Island. As
always, he brings a personal touch to it. He jokes a bit about
his big size, but I think everybody knows that he has a big heart
and he wears it on his sleeve.
As we debate this subject it is interesting to note that
tomorrow is my 25th wedding anniversary. I do not claim any
expertise. In fact, I think that 25 years should qualify a
person for a novice badge, realizing how little we know about the
institution. That being said, marriage has been a wonderful
institution for me. I have a wonderful relationship with my
wife, Deb, which I treasure. I work very hard on maintaining a
good relationship and I look forward to another 25 years.
The member for Elk Island talks about the groups that have been
added and, specifically, homosexuals. Does he think there are
other types of relationships, not necessarily having to do with
marriage, which are important? If the relationship does not have
to do with marriage, does it still count? He mentioned
relationships involving two sisters living together. Would those
other relationships, though not marriage, be important?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I could think of
hundreds of them.
I think of my own friendships before I was a married man. I
used to joke that a single man does not know what true love is
until he is married, and then it is too late. Of course that was
in jest.
1640
Both of our sons were well on in years before they were married.
In fact one of them is not yet married. They have very close
friends. They live together, they share costs and expenses.
They have a relationship which I do not think should qualify
under this bill. The problem I have is that when the government
attempts to come up with a list of everybody who is entitled to
this or that, or whatever, the list never ends. That is the flaw
of this legislation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): 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 Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member
for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Iran; and the hon. member for
Québec, Parental Leave.
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to congratulate the Minister of Justice for taking a bold
approach, for her leadership and for finally putting into law
what has been a long awaited response to an injustice.
I want to speak about one aspect of the bill, which is the
element that deals with children. This is an omnibus bill which
will amend a number of acts. As part of the bill there is an
element which is dear to the hearts of many of my colleagues on
both sides of the issue, that is, children. Whether people are
in married relationships, common law relationships, whether they
are single mothers or fathers, children are very important to all
of us.
To that extent I would say that I am exceptionally happy that
the minister is implementing an initiative which I introduced in
parliament quite a few months ago, which deals with the removal
of any reference to illegitimacy in Canadian law. When I
approached the minister and her officials on the issue the answer
was yes, without any debate whatsoever. It was only that it
would be a matter of time to implement it. I was given the
assurance that at the most opportune time it would be done.
I cannot say how happy I was when this bill was first introduced
and the minister and her officials indicated to me that the
amendment to the bill was in place and that from here on we would
treat all children across Canada on an equal basis, without
reference to whether a child was born within a marriage, a common
law relationship or out of wedlock. We will look at children as
children and treat them as such, and in whatever we do we will
always look to the best interests of the child in every decision
we make as a society.
With that element alone we have moved another step toward
ensuring that justice will be done for all.
The bill is another step toward ensuring that we respect the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child and that we are in
compliance with that convention, which clearly states that
governments at all levels have to review their laws to ensure
that they are in compliance with the UN convention and that they
respect the best interests of the child and ensure that the
child's interests are always paramount in everything we do.
1645
The bill has taken another step toward ensuring that we respect
the charter of rights and freedoms that treats all Canadians
equally regardless of age, sex, place of origin, religion or
their abilities or disabilities.
This is a flowery day, as it is for my colleague from Alberta
whose parents are celebrating their 65th anniversary. It is also
a rosy day for a lot of children across the country, in excess of
two million children, some of whom are sitting on both sides of
the House of Commons. They came up to me after I introduced a
bill last year to thank me for doing something about it because
they did not know that under Canadian laws they were considered
to be illegitimate.
As hon. members know, everyone here in the House is a legitimate
individual who has the right and has earned the right to be here
and to speak out. I would say it is a happy day for all of them.
At the same time, it is a happy day for all of those moms and
dads who will be able to look back and say that they corrected an
injustice that existed in our laws. It took this minister and
this government to show leadership and take the bold approach to
do something about it.
Everyone will now be equal under the law and our children will
be equal under the law. Whether a child is born to a married
couple or an unmarried couple will not longer matter. When some
of my colleagues stand up in the House of Commons and give
lectures about the importance of family, what about the
importance of the child? Why would we not stand up in the House
and make that priority number one? Notwithstanding the
background or the economic condition of the family, why would we
not stand up and ask what is in the best interests of the child?
What the government has done is in the best interests of the
child. It is not right for us to turn around and say that only
in a family situation where the mother and the father are married
will we have a happy situation. That is not always the case.
Many children do live in families where there is abuse or they
are not receiving the proper attention and care that they
deserve. If it was up to me, I would rather see a child without
a family than living in a situation where the family is abusive
to the child.
To that extent, it is hunky-dory for some of my colleagues to
stand up and give us lectures about the fact that it is important
to ensure the family unit without taking into consideration the
importance of ensuring the best interests of the child in that
family unit. Never mind whether it is same sex, opposite sex,
single sex, double sex, quadruple sex, the bottom line here is
that we have to do what is right.
With this legislation, the government has done what is right. We
had a decision by a court.
I am embarrassed that we had to wait until a decision was made by
the court for us to do what we should have done a long time ago,
which is to bring justice to the floor of the House and to
society.
1650
Mr. Speaker, there is a gentleman, we both know very well, who
said something exceptionally good and respectful. It was Pierre
Elliot Trudeau, my idol. What he said continues to ring in my
ears every time this debate surfaces inside or outside the House
of Commons. He said that the government has no business in the
bedrooms of the nation.
For my colleagues over there to stand up with their homophobic
attitude and lecture us about what is and is not civil and what
is or is not morale constitutes an immoral intrusion into the
bedrooms of the nation. They have no business trying to tell
people how to live their lives.
We were elected to enact legislation and laws that provide
equality for all citizens regardless of their relations,
backgrounds, religions and physical or colour differences. It is
our responsibility to ensure that we have laws that treat
everybody equally. The legislation that was introduced by the
minister does just that.
My colleagues should not concern themselves about the
possibility of two people of the same sex, whether they be two
males or two females, lying about about having conjugal
relationships because the law is quite clear on that. It
constitutes a fraud under Canadian law and they could be
prosecuted.
We already have legislation in place that governs people in
common law relationships. To turn around and start twisting the
whole issue from what it is, an issue of fairness, into a
question of an offence on the institution of marriage, is total
rubbish. Frankly, that is skirting the debate in the wrong
direction. It takes it from one end of the spectrum and puts it
in the bush where it does not belong.
We must continue to focus on what is before us. The institution
of marriage is not affected. If members opposite want to define
a marriage between a single man and a single woman, great, but
our society today is different from our society of 100 or 200
years ago. Our society is a modern society that tolerates
differences and takes into consideration the needs of the people.
Our government has to reflect the needs of society.
If we move ahead with some of the suggestions by my colleagues
we will be a troubled society. We must move forward and in order
to do that we must be the mirror of society and respond to the
needs of the people.
This bill is great news for two million children across the land
who will be waking up tomorrow with a smile on their faces
knowing that justice has finally been done.
1655
I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to speak in
support of this legislation. It is my hope that when it goes to
the Senate it will pass quickly.
I have received a number of letters from across the country
referring to this whole notion of differentiating between
children, those born out of wedlock and those born of a single
man and a single woman. Some of them felt terrible. Some are
national journalists, politicians and prominent business people.
Some of are members of the House in very prominent positions.
These are good people and we have to treat them with dignity and
respect. We have to do what is right for them.
I am quite honoured to be the member of parliament who
introduced the bill, but I am more honoured to be associated with
a minister who finally had the guts to stand up and correct the
injustices that existed for such a very long time.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for bringing children into
this debate because I, too, feel very strongly that this
legislation has an enormous impact on children. Indeed, this is
one of the reasons why I support it.
It finally defines same sex relationships as being outside
marriage and because it defines, at last, marriage as being a
lawful union of a man and woman, it creates a situation where,
all things being equal, a child has the right to have
heterosexual parents rather than same sex parents.
The difficulty in my view was that the courts were poised, up
until this legislation, to define marriage as a same sex
relationship. Had they done that, they would have extinguished
the rights of a child, all things being equal, between a same sex
couple as parents and an opposite sex couple being parents, to
have heterosexual parents as the choice.
What happens now with this legislation is that it does not
exclude same sex partners from adopting children. What it does,
though, is it makes sure that the authorities have the discretion
to make the choice between same sex parents or opposite sex
parents.
I have never been one who was prepared, in the interests of
expanding the rights of one group, to extinguish the rights of
another, especially children.
It is true that this legislation is imperfect. I agree to some
degree with the opposition that what it really ought to be about
should be dependent partners. Sex should in no way be involved
in this legislation. However, we had to move for the children
because the courts were poised to determine that a marriage or a
spouse would be an opposite sex relationship. If they had done
that, then the right of a child to have heterosexual parents over
same sex parents would have been extinguished.
This is not to say that same sex parents cannot be good parents.
However, we do not know yet if heterosexual parents are
absolutely equal to same sex parents. It does appear to us far
more natural to have opposite sex parents. I should say far more
normal because, whatever we are, we are all creations of nature
or creations of God. I do not accept that it is unnatural to be
homosexual. We are what we are, but it is certainly, shall we
say, not normal as parents to be a man and a man or a woman and a
woman, which is what this legislation addresses. It makes sure
that, all things being equal, that children have the right to be
adopted first and foremost by heterosexual parents as opposed to
homosexual parents.
I would appreciate it if my colleague would comment on those
remarks.
1700
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, let me just go back to what
this bill is all about. This bill is about implementing a
decision that was rendered by a court. Plain and simple, the
court over and over again looked at this issue and has sent over
and over again the same signal to the government that what we
have to do is ensure that there is no discrimination.
To a large extent the institution of marriage is not affected at
all. In fact, my colleague the minister has taken the extra step
in order to make an unequivocal statement in the bill to say that
for greater clarity, a marriage is between a male and a female.
I would say for any of my colleagues to try to take the debate
from what it is into a new territory is not doing justice any
good. Simply put, the bottom line is that the court is telling
us, “You have been discriminating against people who are living
in a conjugal relationship who are of the same sex”. We have a
charter that clearly states unequivocally that we cannot
discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
To that extent, as a parliamentarian I have to respect the law
of the land. We have to implement what the law is telling us to
implement.
I want to say to some of my colleagues that we have to get out
of our shelters, go out in society and speak to our friends,
speak to our families, speak to people we know in our
constituencies and smell the roses. Societies have changed. I
have no business trying to impose my beliefs on someone else.
With regard to a person's a sexual orientation, it is not my
business to tell them how to live. It is not my business at all.
The law tells me that it is discrimination for me as a
parliamentarian to impose my personal beliefs on others.
To that extent I think shifting the debate from where it belongs
to something else is not right, it is not fair and it is not
appropriate. We need to get the facts straight. It is no longer
acceptable in our society to discriminate against people based on
their sexual orientation, their beliefs, their lifestyle, or on
their background. We have to treat everyone fairly without any
exception.
I do not understand why every few seconds my colleagues stand up
on the other side of the House to try to lecture us on what is
moral, rather than telling us really and truly what is their
problem. Why can they not just realize that society nowadays is
different than society was 500 years ago? Why do we have to
continue to live in the dark ages of the 1200s? Why do we not
move into the new century and do what is right?
In some cases I understand that it may not be popular for some
of my colleagues to stand up and support what is right, but do
you know what, Mr. Speaker? If I were in the shoes of any one of
my colleagues, I would stand up and I would vote for this bill
because that is the right thing to do.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre. He
made a very fine presentation to the House.
He touched on one point that I would like him to expand on. He
mentioned children.
It is society's attitude toward those children and how we must
show that we can be accepting of them and not be discriminatory
toward them and some of the struggles they are going through in a
society which is all too often homophobic.
1705
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt
in my mind that what we as a society have to do is move to the
next step and really start looking at the issue, as one of my
colleague always says, with a holistic approach, which is to look
at every element of the law, whether provincial, federal or
municipal, and always ask how this legislation or law will help
the children and how this law is going to serve the interests of
the child.
Unfortunately, at other levels of government, that is what is
lacking. At this level of government in the House, what the
government has been doing every single time legislation has come
before parliament, whether very recently in the Department of
Industry or the Department of Justice right now or the Department
of Transport before that or the treasury board, every one of
these ministries has introduced legislation in the House and we
always find something in their bills dealing with children.
To that extent I would tell my colleague that he is quite right.
Everything we do must first have the interests of the child at
heart.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke asked why we have to take
things back to the dark ages. What I want to do is bring this to
the 21st century.
I wish I knew who wrote this but apparently it is anonymous.
For the record, I want to indicate that there are four classes of
people. There are those who do not know and do not know that
they do not know. They are foolish. There are those who do not
know and know that they do not know. They are simple and should
be instructed. There are those who know but do not know that
they know. They are asleep, and we should wake them. The fourth
are those who know and know that they know. They are wise and we
should listen to them.
There are many Canadians who fall into the fourth class. They
know that they know. It has to do with marriage. They know what
the institution of marriage is and they know that they know that.
They also know what the definition of marriage is: the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
They have told us that in thousands of letters, thousands of
faxes, thousands of phone calls and thousands of e-mails. That
is why the minister brought in an amendment to the bill.
We need clarity on this bill. Why do we need it? The way the
government will vote on this particular bill will determine
whether it really believes in democracy or whether it simply
wants to promote its particular agenda.
Is it the people that the government will listen to, or will it
ignore the representations which have been made and pursue an
agenda it has set for itself in the interest of a particular
position it wants to advance?
There are three points I want to make in the time left to me.
The first is the need for clarity in legislation. The second is
the need for a clear expression of the intent of parliamentarians
as to what they want the courts to interpret in terms of law. The
third is the need to recognize the significance of the message we
send to society. It is for our children that we send this
message.
The importance of the meaning of a word reminds me of a passage
from Alice in Wonderland: “When you use a word it means
what we choose it to mean, neither more nor less. It is simply a
question of who is the master, that is all”.
The other side of that coin is that whoever determines the
meaning of a word is the master. That suggests then that the
master in Canada is the court, which decided what marriage should
mean.
What it ought to be is that we as parliamentarians better define
what that meaning is if we want to be the master of the intent of
what is meant and how we want the courts to rule. We had better
decide, not the courts and not the judges.
1710
As a parliament, we need to clearly express what we intend
marriage to mean. I have already indicated what various people
in Canada have told us what it ought to be.
I want to move on to the next point which is for our children. I
notice there are five hon. members from the government side of
the House listening. I congratulate them for being here. I want
to register the point about the message parliament is sending to
people. That is do we really want to look at what the people
have told us they want marriage to mean or are we going to put it
somewhere else? We need to be careful in this matter because it
will establish the truth of what we believe. Are we a democratic
institution or are not?
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, yes.
Mr. Werner Schmidt: I am so glad the hon. member over
there said yes, yes. I expect him to vote according to the way
his constituents want him to, not the way the agenda has told him
to.
It matters what history has told us. Our custom has been very
clear, that marriage shall be the lawful union of one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others. That has been our history
and tradition. Much has been said that that is what the
definition is and it will continue to be. Parliament put that on
record last June by passing Motion 216-55. It was very clear
that parliament should do every thing it could. If the minister
had really wanted to make the definition of marriage in her
amendment legally binding, she could have.
According to David Brown, a constitutional expert and litigation
lawyer in one of the reputable firms in Toronto, if she really
wanted to do that, there were three things she could have done.
She could have done something to amend the Marriage Act to
include a specific definition of marriage. Or, she could have
amended the bill to include an enacting section which provides
that “for the purposes of all federal legislation, the word
`marriage' means the lawful union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others”. Or, she could have amended the bill
to include amendments to each affected act enacting in each such
act a specific definition of the word marriage. She did none of
those three.
In fact, what she did was put it into the interpretation
section. What was the amendment? She said “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”. If that is what
she really meant, she should have put it in an enacting section
in the law. It would have meant something. The way it is
written now does not have that impact.
We have hon. members opposite who are in the legal profession
and who know jolly good and well that this is the case. The
Minister of Justice knows this is the case. There is absolutely
nothing new in what I am telling the hon. minister. She knows
better. So do certain other ministers who are sitting across the
way.
The time has come for us to tell the truth and to recognize that
the people of Canada do want marriage to be defined as the lawful
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
They want that in the law of Canada. That is what they have told
us. If these government people are going to honestly reflect
that, they are going to vote that way. It would be incorrect for
them not to vote that way and vote the way the whip tells them.
I would suggest that it is an abuse of the power of the whip to
force each one of them to vote a particular way. They should
vote according to the way the people have told them to.
If they do not do that we then have to be very clear that that
group of people over there is anti-family and not in favour of
marriage. We have to be absolutely clear what this is about. It
is time that we determine what we are. Are we democratic? Do we
really mean that marriage is one man and one woman lawfully
united? Is that the issue or is it something else?
1715
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Monday, April 10, 2000, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now
before the House.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1750
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Hubbard
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 72
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Crête
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood
– 171
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to
on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood – 176
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Peric
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Steckle
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 72
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a
matter involving the travel of the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade, there have been consultations
among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent
for the adoption of the following motion. I move:
That Group “A”, composed of members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, be authorized to travel
to Ankara (Turkey), Istanbul (Turkey), Baku (Azerbaijan),
Tbilisi (Georgia), Yerevan (Armenia) from May 6 to 16, 2000, and
Group “B”, composed of members of the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, be authorized to travel
to Almaty (Kazakhstan), Tashkent (Uzbekistan), Astana
(Kazakhstan), Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) from May 6 to 16, 2000, in
order to examine Canada's foreign policy interests in the South
Caucasus and Central Asia, and that the necessary staff do
accompany the committee.
1805
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House
to introduce the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.06 p.m.,
the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
The House resumed from November 15, 1999, consideration of the
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate was
suspended the hon. member for Churchill had five minutes
remaining.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once
again I thank my colleague from Churchill River, Saskatchewan for
bringing forth Motion No. 237.
Since it has been a while since the motion was last before the
House, I would like to read it again. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
The 55th parallel is very important to me. I have lived in
Thompson, Manitoba for about 27 years. We recognize ourselves as
being north of the 55th. We identify with northerners throughout
the other provinces in Canada and throughout the world.
We have had the opportunity to meet with people and we deal with
a lot of the same issues, the same problems. In a lot of cases
our peoples are the same in those northern areas.
We find it somewhat interesting that within Canada we do not
recognize the 55th parallel as being the boundary which should
enable us to belong to the circumpolar group represented
throughout the world.
This motion would certainly give us that opportunity. It would
give the peoples of those northern communities the opportunity to
meet with the peoples of the circumpolar regions of the world on
a regular basis, and to discuss more formally how they could
address the problems they may be having and the issues they may
be dealing with.
I would suggest that at this crucial time in our history, with
global warming, now more than ever it is important that the
peoples of these regions come together to identify the problems
which are resulting from global warming.
In the region of Churchill, Manitoba there is documented
evidence that polar bears are not able to sustain their lives the
way they have in the past because of global warming. The ice is
not staying in long enough, so they cannot get out to eat enough
seals to keep their weight on to get them through those long cold
winters in northern Manitoba.
Now more than ever it is a crucial time to recognize that
Canada, and those regions of Canada which are north of the 55th,
should be part of that global family which is recognized as the
circumpolar region.
The different peoples involved in these regions are similar
throughout the world. Indigenous peoples in the Arctic areas
have concerns about the effects on wildlife and themselves of the
long range transport to the north of contaminants. Again, this
would provide an opportunity for them to come together to address
those concerns.
Motion No. 237 asks that the House, by adopting this motion,
recognize that northern impacts are not limited to the 60th
parallel box. That is the area which Canada recognizes as
belonging to the circumpolar group.
It is Canada itself which is recognizing this, so we as
parliamentarians have the opportunity to change that. I would
hope that my colleagues would consider that. It is important to
the northern region of Manitoba, my region, but I am sure it
would be important as well to the other provinces of Canada.
1810
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate on this motion, as it is a motion in
which I am most interested.
Like my colleague who spoke previously, I have spent a good deal
of my life at 55 degrees north in two different situations. I
lived in the north of England in the British Isles, and I lived
for three years in Schefferville, which, like Churchill, is about
55 degrees north in northern Quebec. It is interesting that I
have lived at both of those locations, at 55 degrees north, and
both of them are very different.
I also spent well over a year of my life at 80 degrees north,
which is pretty far north. I do not think there would be any
debate about that.
It is interesting to note that three of the great cities of the
world, St. Petersburg, Helsinki and Stockholm, are all very large
communities and are located at 60 degrees north. Again, they are
located at very different locations from Churchill, Yukon,
northern Quebec and the British Isles. Those great cities are
located in Scandinavia and Russia.
The member uses the argument of global warming. When we lived
in Schefferville, in northern Quebec, we argued that
Schefferville was in the north, not because it was warm or
getting warmer, but because it was very cold. Because of the
wind, the snow and the storms, it was even colder than average
conditions would suggest.
If we start at Labrador and northern Quebec and move through
northern Ontario, across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, into
B.C. and Yukon, using average conditions, they get better. I
would argue that the town of Schefferville is as far north as one
could possibly get in terms of the severity of weather conditions
and the lack of comfort.
What I like about the member's motion is that it is a way of
raising awareness in Canada of the north and of the importance of
the north. It is true that we are a great northern nation, but
we lack awareness of that fact.
The other countries I have mentioned, even the British Isles,
have a strong sense of the north in some parts, and yet by our
standards in Canada we do not think of them as being northern at
all. Here in Canada, with our very high Arctic territory, more
than any other country, there is a very low awareness of that
fact.
The member's motion I think is excellent and draws attention to
the people and the conditions of the middle north. He is doing
us all a great service by bringing forward his motion.
The government has done a remarkable amount of work with respect
to the circumpolar community. It was Canada which really brought
together the Arctic Council, which represented the eight polar
nations and three great, different, indigenous peoples'
organizations.
The Arctic Council came into being after the Soviet Union
disappeared. Canada persuaded the United States, through Alaska,
that it should be part of a council which would have an overview
of the circumpolar community.
The Arctic Council has been very active. It was the Liberal
government which appointed, for the first time, an ambassador of
circumpolar affairs, Mary Simon. It is interesting to note that
Mary Simon was the elected president of the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference, the great international organization of Inuit from
Greenland to Siberia. It was the Inuit Circumpolar Conference
which brought forward the idea of the Arctic environmental
protection strategy, which is a self-explanatory strategy
instrument, which has been taken over by the Arctic Council. The
council now represents all circumpolar nations and is being used
as the basis for the protection of the environment in the entire
circumpolar north.
1815
The Arctic Council and the ambassador for circumpolar affairs
are both examples of something which the government has done to
bring attention to things northern, as the hon. member is doing
here very effectively.
With respect to the people at 55° north or anywhere else on the
globe, I point to the establishment of the University of the
Arctic by the Arctic Council. The University of the Arctic now
exists in form. It is not yet offering courses. I believe its
secretariat is based in northern Finland at the moment, but it
will be a moving secretariat. The University of the Arctic will
offer courses through the Internet which will be available all
over the world, but which in fact will be particularly valuable
to residents of the middle north, the near north and the high
Arctic. I see the University of the Arctic as a positive outcome
of the Arctic Council which was established by Canada.
Since the Arctic Council was established, I note that the
government has continued with activity which has stimulated
interest in the north across Canada, as the hon. member is trying
to do, and stimulated interest in circumpolar affairs, in which
the hon. member has mentioned he is equally interested.
I point out a 1997 review of northern interests entitled
“Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of
Co-operation into the Twenty-First Century”. That was followed
in 1998 by the Sustainable Development in the Arctic: Lessons
Learned and the Way Ahead conference which was held in
Whitehorse. It involved the federal government, the territorial
governments of both the Yukon and, as it was in those days, the
Northwest Territories government. Now of course it would include
Nunavut. Those conferences were designed to gather information
about the north from the people of the north and also to
stimulate interest in the north across the whole country.
The minister commissioned a consultation paper to order northern
foreign policy for Canada. Through it, the ambassador for
circumpolar affairs, Mary Simon, whom I just mentioned, conducted
hearings not only in various northern locations, but also in
southern Canada, including in my own community of Peterborough.
Like the hon. member's motion, that activity stimulated interest
in Canada in both our north and the circumpolar north, and it
stimulated interest in what Canada is doing and what Canadians
are doing in their own north.
I am pleased the hon. member is putting this motion forward. I
commend him for it. I am not personally sure of the
practicalities of shifting to 55° north for the reasons I have
mentioned. Of the other circumpolar nations, I suspect those
that have capitals and major cities at 60° might well have some
concerns about bringing in latitudes as far south as the British
Isles, such as Ireland, for example. However, I strongly support
his motivation in raising awareness of the people of Canada's
north, including my daughter who was born at 55°, and the people
who live farther north in Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too wish
to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River, for giving
the House this opportunity for discussion and no doubt to go
further.
I have many reasons to wish to speak to this motion. I was not
on the foreign affairs committee when it carried out its study
proposing the addition of the entire circumpolar aspect to
Canada's foreign policy, but I can say that I have already been
the Parti Quebecois adviser on this program, and as such proposed
the addition of a component for the north.
1820
We cannot look at a map, know the history or be interested in
international relations, or know society—I am speaking of
Quebec—and not know that the north is inhabited by native
peoples, nations, totally original societies, that developed
mores and, in terms of the environment, for example, are
inheriting problems generated in the south. They do not always
have the means to resolve these problems.
I was also aware of the need for the various societies in the
north to talk to each other. I am pleased as well to hear the
member point to the major contribution by a geographer, an
anthropologist, Louis Hamelin, a historian as well, who really
contributed to giving the north, northern societies and northern
Quebecers, their letters patent of nobility. I think he really
pushed us to expand our interest in the north, but he also pushed
for organization of the people in the north.
All these reasons heighten our interest, because we have to
learn from others and must get organized. The member for
Churchill will not, however, be surprised to hear me raise a
question, which in Quebec and no doubt in the other provinces, if
it applies, is of interest: it is the question of the
translation. For the expression “frontière canadienne”, in
English, instead of saying Canadian border, they say boundary. I
have had some research done, and this is confirmed by
international research.
The word frontière is closer to the English term border, while
boundary is a better equivalent of limite or “limite
territoriale”.
The definition that I found reads as follows: “Border: noun,
edge of a road, etc.”. The second meaning is that of a “dividing
line between two countries”. This is not what the motion of the
hon. member for Churchill River is about. On the other hand, the
definition of boundary says “noun, border, anything marking a
limit” and adds “between countries”, “frontier”. So, I urge this
assembly to allow us to continue the debate on the member's
objective by accepting the following amendment.
I move:
That the motion be amended by replacing, in the French version,
the word “frontière” with the following: “limite
territoriale”.
Members will realize, and I am sure the hon. member does, that
we completely change the meaning of his motion if we change the
border of the provinces.
I am sure this is not at all what he intended. His intention is
to define a boundary within borders, but a boundary beyond which
people recognize themselves and are defined as being from the
north, as being nordic people and as being part of the
circumpolar circle.
1825
Other members wondered whether the 55th parallel should be
debated. I think we could discuss it, but not if the word
“frontière” is kept instead of “limite”. I have not spoken with
Mr. Hamelin, but I think he would agree with the word “limite”
instead of “frontière”.
I wanted to move this amendment because, otherwise, we are no
longer talking about the same thing. We are talking about
redefining borders and I do not think that the member for
Churchill River intended, by his proposal, to create societies
completely detached from the province to which they belong.
I believe he wants people living in northern regions to be able
to form groups, with the approval of the provinces and NGOs, in
order to define goals, bring pressure to bear, run programs or
take part with parliamentarians in the proceedings of the Arctic
Council.
Once again, I congratulate the member on raising this issue in
the House and I urge him to take into consideration the reasons
for my amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in order,
but I wish to know whether it applies to the French text only.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In English, the word
used is not border but boundary. The purpose of my amendment is
so that the word used in French is what I consider the best translation
of the word boundary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Fine. The amendment is
therefore in order.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I think by my rising and speaking in the English language the
interpreters who are interpreting from French to English must be
heaving a huge sigh of relief after your work.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I take that as a
compliment.
Mr. Ken Epp: I did not mean it to have any derogatory
sense at all, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take a few minutes to debate Motion No. M-237,
which is interesting. What the amendment has done is put into
French what we were understanding. Had the hon. member for
Churchill proposed to change the boundaries of the provinces,
there would have been quite a bit more discussion on this. He
would have found himself in many interviews with the press and
many other exciting events had he actually proposed that we move
the boundaries of all of the provinces down in order to
accommodate this motion.
I would like to speak to the motion as given:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
As I understand it, he is not changing any borders. All he
wants to do, when it comes to negotiations and participation with
other countries involving the circumpolar region, is include all
of those people who are north of the 55th parallel.
I wish he would look at me and nod so that I understand the
motion. He is nodding yes. Thank you.
1830
I do not know how many people here are aware of an interesting
fact about Canada. I happen to live just outside of Edmonton,
Alberta. Edmonton is at 53 degrees. This suggestion means that
we would be taking a line approximately 220 kilometres north of
Edmonton, everything north of that would then be considered to be
in the circumpolar region if this motion were to pass. Another
way of putting it is that we are moving the boundary south
approximately 560 kilometres from the present 60th parallel.
An interesting fact about Edmonton and about Canada is that
Edmonton is farther from the equator than any land mass in the
southern hemisphere is from the equator, other than the
Antarctic. In other words, if you went to the very southernmost
point of South America, Africa or Australia, you would still be
nearer the equator than we are in Edmonton. We have a lot of
people who live north of the 55th parallel. We are indeed a
hardy population in Canada. We believe in sticking our faces
into the wind and the snow and carrying on.
The motion has to do with the inclusion of people who are living
between the 55th and the 60th parallel for the purposes of these
international debates and discussions.
It goes without saying that living in the northern climate is a
challenge. It is a harsh climate. It is one that demands a lot
of respect for the people who for centuries have lived in that
region, have survived there and have done very well. They are a
hardy people. We ought to congratulate and admire them for that.
It also makes a great deal of sense that, when we deal with the
question of how to survive in such a harsh climate, we work with
other countries that have similar situations so that anything we
discover or invent that will help us to live comfortably in that
part of the world we would then share that with people of other
countries who are also in this circumpolar region.
Second, this part of the country is very rich in resources. A
lot of people are not aware of that. We tend to think that life
begins in Toronto, stretches over to Montreal and ends in Ottawa.
A lot of this country that is outside of that Bermuda Triangle
that I have just mentioned.
North of the 55th and 60th parallels, there are many resources.
We are talking about huge mineral and mining resources, such as
oil, gas, and all the natural resources which exist up there. As
well, it is a part of the world that is very rich in animal life
and vegetation. There are many different forms of life.
This brings challenges to all of us who live in that kind of a
climate. I cannot but encourage us to work together with other
countries that are developing their resources in similar
climates, to share our resources and, hence, improve the quality
of life of more people than just our own.
I have some serious questions on this subject. I am always a
great one for asking questions and then allowing other people to
try to find the answers. I have some serious questions about our
work with other countries in this particular regard.
It seems to me that Canada very quickly tends to help form or
join any and every organization that comes up. We see our Prime
Minister going overseas. Part of this country's foreign policy
seems to be developed as information goes from the Prime
Minister's brain to his mouth. It is not fully formulated when
it leaves his brain but, by the time it gets to his mouth, we
have some pronouncements. We have heard that in the last couple
of days.
1835
How effective is the Arctic Council? When we deal with other
countries through it, are we getting a kick for our dollar? I
wonder if there are better ways in which this can be
accomplished. Can the finance minister tell us what studies have
been done to show that this is a wise investment and that it is
worthy for us to be participating in these organizations with
other countries in this way?
What often happens is that these organizations tend to grow as
soon as government resources are put into them. It is not only
from Canada but other countries as well. It is not necessarily a
corollary that a larger organization gives more benefits to the
taxpayers in whatever country, including Canada. However, I
think Canada is particularly vulnerable to joining and spending
money without being really cognizant of tangible and measurable
benefits.
I suppose we could maybe just put it under the auspices of HRDC
and see what happens. It could not be much worse than what we
already have. I am being facetious so I had better say that. I
do not think Hansard records the sound of sarcasm. Now I
have it on the record.
The other question I have concerns the relationship between the
provinces and the federal government. We already have a lot of
tension between the provinces and the federal government in the
areas of health care and others. If this boundary were moved
down then a portion of each province would once again have to
work, I think, through the federal government in foreign policy
in order to deal with foreign countries.
I do not think we will say to these organizations that are
dealing north of the 55th that they have carte blanche, that they
can do whatever they want. It invariably has to be in consonance
with federal foreign policy, which is, of course, controlled by
the federal government.
To have another organization in parallel to what we already have
instead of working within that is questionable in my view and
would need more answers.
At any rate, I congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River
for again showing us genuine, legitimate concerns about the north
and how the people of that part of the country are working
together.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for Churchill River has introduced an interesting
concept into the House debates. It is worth reminding ourselves
that the concept of territorial frontiers is a relatively modern
conception, and it is of course a European conception.
We were reminded by the brilliant Algerian jurist, Mohammed
Bedjaoui, who later became president of the world court, in the
western Sahara case, that it really did not have much meaning for
non-European people until the Europeans arrived without
invitation on non-European shores.
I looked very carefully at this and I sympathize with the
motivation behind it. One point to bear in mind, however, is
that a unilateral declaration by the Canadian parliament on
recognition of membership status in any organization is not
something that one can impose on others. It may be a King Canute
type declaration that nobody else accepts.
Every recognized official international organization has its own
credential committees, its own criteria for membership and the
status of membership.
This is a rather distinct group of organizations that we are
dealing with here. I note the comments of the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
1840
[Translation]
He highlighted the many and interesting new partnerships that
are on the horizon, particularly with Russia and the Baltic
States. He cited existing partnerships such as the Arctic
Council, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council of the European Union
and the Council of Baltic Sea States. The Euro-Arctic Council
created committees to serve as forums for co-operation. I am
talking of a collection of international organizations without
legal status or decision making powers.
[English]
We are dealing with voluntary organizations like the
Commonwealth and, to some extent, La Francophonie that are created
but do not have decision making powers. Therefore, the strict
rules that we apply to the United Nations, or it applies to
itself and its subsidiary organizations do not apply.
The valuable aspect of this suggestion is to take note of the
formula that Paul Martin, Sr., the minister of external affairs in
1965, and the then premier of Quebec developed for
federal-provincial co-operation and for the federal government,
without sacrificing its autonomy as a federal government,
voluntarily to include representatives of the provinces in
Canadian delegations to international conferences, including
those within official United Nations organizations.
If the motion by the member for Churchill River could be
interpreted as being an invitation to the Canadian government to
recognize the artificiality of the distinction between the 60th
and 55th parallels and the many elements of the Canadian
community, then I would endorse it. The Metis are a perfect
example, as are the Indian communities much further south in
Canada. If it is an invitation to the Canadian government to
consider naming these people as part of the Canadian delegations,
then I think it is a recommendation that I would endorse and
favourably recommend to the government. I think the government
could accept it.
It is certainly within the spirit of these larger northern
organizations that we recognize a common ethnic link between the
peoples of Russian Siberia, northern Finland, northern Sweden,
northern Norway, Iceland and our Indian peoples, aboriginal
peoples and the Metis people. Why not take advantage of that?
One of the powerful instruments of Canadian foreign policy
is to profit from the plurality of our peoples and our cultures.
In that light, I would suggest that the government can and
should take notice of this suggestion.
The hon. member for Mercier is a very thoughtful member.
[Translation]
The member for Mercier has moved an amendment about the
distinction between boundaries and borders. English legal
language does not, in my opinion, afford any legal significance
to this distinction, but, in French, I certainly accept her
suggestion. It seems to me the best English translation would
be to substitute a concept such as “the southern limit”, or
something like it.
In that spirit, I can certainly accept the suggestion, which
seems quite valuable. It also indicates the plurality of our
thought on this issue, and it is in this spirit that I willingly
accept the proposal by the member for Churchill River.
[English]
He has reminded us that this is a plural country. He has
reminded us that Canada is more than just the European descended
peoples and the concept of territorial limit based on the 55th
parallel has an artificiality that is certainly Eurocentric in
its origins. Therefore, in the future, Canadian delegations will
take advantage of our peoples who are linked by ties of
consanguinity to the northernmost people above the 60th
boundaries and will be an extra richness for our delegations.
1845
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague for
Richmond—Arthabaska has already spoken to Motion M-237,
introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. However, I
would like to add a few more points.
[English]
A lot of things can be said in reference to the bill, but indeed
the cornerstone of the bill is where does the north start? Does
it matter that the border is placed at the 55th parallel or the
60th parallel? And what are the consequences of this change?
What is the purpose of it? What are we trying to accomplish
here?
It is true that we do not think enough of the north and I think
this is a shame as the north is full of natural resources. We
are all aware that our Canadian economy is primarily based on the
export of natural resources. Indeed, we should pay better
attention to the northern people as well.
I believe that my colleague from Churchill River has attempted
to catch our attention through this motion, and for that I
congratulate him.
A question that I think we should ask is will modifying the
circumpolar boundary have such significance or is there not
another way to increase the strength of the people from the
north? Of course, by setting the border at the 55th parallel we
would increase the political weight of the north within Canada as
we would be including more people.
In order to deal with such a motion, we have to study the impact
of the changes within Canada. For instance, what will happen to
the provinces? How will they react to this? What about certain
governmental departments like natural resources, Indian affairs
and others?
[Translation]
Certain provinces, then, might have to comply with new
obligations because of this change. If part of the territory of
certain provinces were to become part of the Canadian north, this
would have an inevitable impact on the provinces. But are they
in a position to respond to that impact?
It would be important for the provinces to be consulted on this
matter, because their boundaries will be affected if the parallel
change is made.
[English]
Even though the purpose of the motion presented by
my colleague from Churchill River is good, the Progressive
Conservative Party could not support the motion because of the
way it is presented. We feel that a great number of elements are
missing and that it could create more damage than good if the
motion were passed as it is now.
The Canadian north is one of our best kept secrets. It is true
that measures should be taken in order to develop its tremendous
potential and that we should collaborate with the people who live
there, but the PC Party just does not believe that changing the
boundary will achieve that. Maybe it would give the people of
the north more political weight inside Canada, but still, I do
not think this is the real solution to developing the north.
[Translation]
High technology is often referred to in connection with the
world economy. We have only to look at the investments here in
this region, in Silicon Valley North, and in other regions of
Canada in the areas of pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and
high tech.
These are fields that are in rapid expansion, and they represent
a real economic force. The north, however, is going to take on
more and more importance as well.
[English]
Indeed, let us not forget that even though high tech is the
future, Canada's economy still relies primarily on its natural
resources and that most of them are located within the north.
Instead of changing the boundary, should we not focus on
developing northern Canada?
The PC party believes that if efforts are being carefully
directed, the Canadian economy could even grow stronger through
proper development of our natural resources in the north and high
tech in the south.
1850
Our party supports betters development and a stronger economy
for all regions of Canada, including the north.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to rise in support of the
motion put forward by my friend and colleague from Churchill
River.
I want in the beginning simply to indicate as he has speaking at
a previous time that what we are talking about here is not
changing the borders and boundaries of provinces and having some
new definition here that would create a whole rearrangement in
the way government is done, at least in terms of borders and
territories. What my colleague has said is that the circumpolar
world uses the 55th parallel as its definition.
If we look at it on a map from the top of the world, so to
speak, from the Arctic looking down, we see that that parallel
would take in entire countries such as Finland, Sweden and vast
swaths of Russia, but in Canada the way it works now is that the
border is set at the border of the Northwest Territories. When
these people get together to talk about common issues and
concerns, and certainly there are common issues and concerns no
matter what country they happen to fall into, in Canadian terms
there are vast and large reaches of what we consider to be the
north which are not included.
What my colleague I think is saying is that we are not talking
about changing political borders. We are talking about changing
borders perhaps in the way that we think and perceive. I will
give a few examples of this based on my own experience growing up
in the southern area of the province of Saskatchewan, whereas my
colleague grew up in the northern area. There are vast
differences in history, in geography and many other aspects.
I will describe the river systems in Saskatchewan. The South
and North Saskatchewan Rivers which arise in the Rockies and go
on through Saskatchewan up into Manitoba and empty into Hudson
Bay drain an area which is very different than the northern area.
In fact the 55th parallel falls between the Saskatchewan River
systems and the Churchill River to the north, not to mention the
Peace-Athabasca system which runs out of Lake Athabasca one way
and ends up on the coast and the Mackenzie River system ends up
going straight north.
There have been in history, the fur trade for example, very keen
and perceived differences between these areas, the area drained
by the Saskatchewan River system and the areas drained further
north.
To use one example, I have read significantly fur trade
literature. A great writer and map maker named David Thompson
spent many years first in the area of what is called the
Saskatchewan River system and later on in further points north.
In very descriptive writing he talks about the significant
differences between the Cree and the Chipewyan people which he
described extremely eloquently, not to mention the Dene and Inuit
people.
There are differences among those people but they pale in
comparison to the differences historically in many other ways
between those people and the Europeans who came to settle the
more southerly areas of our province.
I do know from the time I have spent in my own home province of
Saskatchewan as a resident and a journalist that there have been
attempts and recognitions by our provincial government, a belated
one I might add, but in the early 1970s there was a recognition
that the way in which southern Saskatchewan was governed was not
working to the benefit of what we consider to be northern
Saskatchewan and again the line would come pretty close to the
55th parallel as described by my colleague from Churchill River.
The government of the day, the government of Premier Allan
Blakeney, observed that things were not working in the north and
that there had to be some new efforts made. The department of
northern Saskatchewan was created. There were attempts to have
new ways of governing take place.
1855
These attempts were not entirely successful but they were indeed
a recognition between the vast differences between what we
consider to be the south and the north.
I might add that one of the considerations given was that there
should be some form of revenue sharing for resources extracted
from the north because, as we know, unfortunately we have tended
to extract resources in northern areas inhabited by aboriginal
peoples and take the benefits and the riches south. That is
common not only in the province in which I was raised, but also
in the other provinces.
What my colleague, the member for Churchill River, is saying is
that we must recognize that the situation I am describing in
Saskatchewan historically is one which could be said to have
existed in all of the provinces and that Canada's way of dealing
with the people in northern territories has been similar. We
exploit the resource but the people who live there are often
disadvantaged by the ways in which we exploit the resource that
has an environmental component and also by the loss of wealth to
the region which they inhabit.
It is that kind of stepping out of the box that my colleague and
friend from Churchill River is asking us to do. He is saying
that the international community has identified the 55th parallel
as its recognized boundary for circumpolar participation. He is
not saying that we should change the boundaries of our country in
any political way.
There are eight member states in the Arctic Council. They are
Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and
the United States, because of the state of Alaska. These people
do get together and they have many important things in common to
discuss. I believe that is why this motion is important. It is
to extend membership or at least the possibility of
representation to people living further south.
My friend and colleague, the member for Churchill River, has
talked about the fact that people in these northern areas are
environmentally disadvantaged, if I may put it that way, from
pollution which they did not create but with which they have to
live. I remember reading not long ago in a newspaper front page
story about an aboriginal woman in Churchill whose son had
developed what we would call sunburn. That has to do with the
thinning of the ozone layer, particularly in northern Canada. We
have heard recently, and this is a cause for great concern, that
the ozone hole there is depleted by about 60%. The woman's young
child had developed a rash on the back of his neck and she, in
her language, did not have a word to describe sunburn. That is
the kind of thing that is happening to people in the north.
My colleague from Churchill River is not saying that somehow we
should split that part of the country off from the other in any
politically identifiable boundary sense. He is saying that these
people also have a concern. They also share in the fate which
may befall them, much to their chagrin, if things keep going
along the way they are environmentally. He is saying that people
in a place like Churchill have much more in common with people
further north than they might have with people in Winnipeg or
Saskatoon or Thunder Bay and they have a common way of looking at
the world and some common problems that we do not quite share.
He is asking, at the very least, when these international
conferences occur which do look at the world from a certain point
of view that is very valid and very grounded in the life they
have lived for thousands and thousands of years, that the people
in northern Canada, the part of Canada between the 55th and 60th
parallel, be given the opportunity to participate and extend this
world view and explain it to the rest of us so that we might
begin to look at that part of the world a little differently.
He is certainly talking about governments. He has talked about
how the Canadian government has taken a very colonial mentality
toward those areas. He is saying that we have to change. This
motion is only a motion, it is not a bill. The world will not
change overnight if we pass it, which I certainly hope we do. I
recommend to other members that they support it.
He is simply saying let these people participate in this
organization and some other organizations which have a similar
intent.
He feels that there will be an advantage if this occurs. I
certainly agree with him.
1900
I would urge members not to be too picky in saying what
dastardly things would result from this, because no dastardly
things would result, other than perhaps a change of mindset, and
that would not be so dastardly at all.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise
to speak to this motion.
I would like to thank the member for Churchill River for giving
the government an opportunity to speak to our ongoing recognition
and support of the many challenges and opportunities facing
Canadians in northern communities.
To respond adequately to my colleague from Churchill River I
feel that I should first say something about the government's
vision and agenda for the north.
[Translation]
In the widest sense our long term objectives for the north
parallel the goals we have for other parts of Canada and reflect
the broad themes of “Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal
Action Plan”. These are as follows. First, democratic,
effective, and accountable governments give their citizens input
into the decisions that most directly affect them.
Second, individuals and communities, whose fundamental rights
are protected, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for
example, receive services and programs comparable to those
received by Canadians elsewhere, but their diversity as
northerners is safeguarded and encouraged.
Third, prosperous local economies develop in a dynamic and
sustainable way, strengthened by the knowledge and research
needed for success over the long term.
Fourth, fiscal relationships provide governments with the
resources and stability needed to act effectively in the present
and to plan for the future.
This government's vision includes ensuring the protection of
aboriginal rights and that market-based economies with
conventional regulatory structures are adapted in the north.
Real progress is being made. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal
groups are communicating better and with the settlement of
claims and agreements on self-government the groundwork is being
laid for even more progress and co-operative institution-building
in the future.
On the international front, our previous preoccupation with
asserting sovereignty over the north has been replaced by a more
productive and positive focus on encouraging circumpolar
co-operation.
Concrete steps have been taken toward these goals with
indigenous participation in international forums such as the
Arctic Council and the work of the Canadian Polar Commission.
Since 1991, the Canadian Polar Commission has played a critical
role with respect to monitoring, promoting and disseminating
knowledge of the polar regions; contributing to public awareness
of the importance of polar science to Canada; enhancing Canada's
international profile as a circumpolar nation; and recommending
polar science policy direction to the government.
The commission's commitment to promoting the development and
dissemination of knowledge of polar regions has been evident
through the commission's participation in the interdepartmental
committee for the Northern Science and Technology Strategy, and
through the efforts to foster the advancement of traditional
knowledge.
Furthermore, the commission's work with respect to enhancing
Canada's profile as a Circumpolar Nation through its involvement
with the International Arctic Science Committee and the
Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research has, indeed, been
invaluable. The point of all this is to highlight the fact that
we have an excellent vision and agenda for the north that is
producing real benefits for northerners and for the country as a
whole.
At the core of my hon. colleague's motion today is his assertion
that the government rigidly defines the north as only that
territory which lies north of the 60th parallel. Let me be
perfectly clear from the start. We, in fact, do not have one
singular, inclusive definition of the north. I believe that I
can best illustrate the government's position on this question
with a few examples.
1905
One of this government's programs administered to the north, for
example, is the food mail program. This program is designed to
make nutritious, perishable food more affordable in isolated
communities.
In conclusion, for 1999-2000, the program's budget is
$15.6 million. The program provides funding to Canada Post for
transporting nutritious, perishable foods to isolated
communities by air. This funding helps keep the cost of food
down.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. parliamentary secretary. He will have another five minutes
remaining when the bill next comes up for consideration before
the House.
[English]
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.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very concerned about how the government is dealing with our
veterans suffering from the Gulf War syndrome and other
post-traumatic stress disorders.
On many occasions I have raised the issue of the dangers posed
by depleted uranium and its impact on our Canadian Forces,
civilians and citizens of other countries. My warnings about the
dangers of depleted uranium seem to have fallen on deaf ears for
the most part.
Depleted uranium was found in the body of Nova Scotia veteran
Terry Riordan. There are others seeking testing and treatment
for depleted uranium.
I wrote to the Ministers of National Defence and Veterans
Affairs in March and I quote from my letter:
I am concerned that more recently troops may have been exposed to
DU in Kosovo. Mr. Eggleton, as you know I raised this with you
in the House of Commons numerous times starting back in April of
last year.
On behalf of the entire federal NDP caucus, I call on you to:
expand DU testing to include tissues and other samples necessary
to detect presence of DU and its effects; ensure this testing is
undertaken by an independent and respected laboratory; provide
testing for immediate family members on request; have Canada take
the lead in working toward an international treaty banning the
use of DU in weapons.
Further, to ensure the health of our veterans and their
families, I call on your government to do the right thing and
initiate a full Public Inquiry on the medical effects of DU on
our Forces, their families, and any Canadian civilians who may
have been exposed to this substance.
Unlike the United States, Canada does not have legislation
allowing it to pay compensation to Gulf War veterans who have
been disabled by undiagnosed chronic illnesses. Since early 1995
the United States Veterans Administration has been providing
compensation payments to chronically disabled Gulf War veterans
with undiagnosed illnesses under the Persian Gulf War Veterans'
Act. This benefit was expanded under an April 1997 regulation
that essentially eliminated the date of initial manifestation of
latent symptoms as a consideration in the adjudication through to
the end of 2001. Under these regulations a disability is
considered chronic if it has existed for at least six months.
It is appalling that Canada has chosen to treat veterans and
others suffering from these disorders so poorly compared with our
neighbours to the south.
I will mention, however, that I was very glad the minister
recently met in Halifax with veterans suffering from these
conditions. I attended part of these sessions and I believe the
minister would like to treat our troops suffering from illness
relating to their service with respect. But as we all know, good
intent is not enough. Concrete, positive action is desperately
needed in this case.
Of the approximately 750,000 troops deployed to the Persian
Gulf, 4,500 of which were Canadian, approximately one-tenth are
reporting a series of symptoms, the majority of which include
fatigue, headache, muscle and joint pain, diarrhoea, skin rashes,
shortness of breath and chest pains.
The famous epidemiologist, Dr. Rosalie Bertel, has the following
to say about depleted uranium:
DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal
and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very
dangerous when taken internally.
Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and
radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium
dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point
of release, or settle suspended in the air waiting to be stirred
up in dust by human or animal movement.
It is very small and can be breathed by anyone, from babies and
pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and
toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the
surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect
the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bone, other
tissues and renal system.
1910
In the response that we will now hear regarding my comments, I
ask the Liberal government to give direct answers to the points I
have raised. Will the government expand the new testing, as I
have outlined, and ensure that testing is undertaken by
independent and respected laboratories? Families of those people
who are suffering from and have suffered from depleted uranium
poisoning and other post-traumatic stress are waiting for a
complete and positive response to these questions.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon.
member will be quite pleased by my remarks this evening.
As the minister has said many times previously, he cares about
the health and welfare of CF members. We must take care of
anyone who was healthy when they were deployed but were sick when
they came back. I urge anyone who thinks they may be ill to seek
medical attention. Those who want depleted uranium testing
should contact the Centre for Injured and Retired Members and
Their Families at 1-800-883-6094 or their nearest CF medical
facility.
After reviewing proposals from a number of laboratories, the
department selected two different independent companies to do the
testing. Results from the testing will be sent to a civilian
consultant for independent interpretation. Arrangements are now
in place to begin testing current and former Canadian forces
members who have asked for the procedure.
We are offering depleted uranium testing as a way of answering
any possible concerns of CF personnel. The vast majority of
scientific evidence indicates that depleted uranium is not a
hazard to Canadian forces personnel. Normally, the CF test
personnel for depleted uranium if there is evidence they have
been exposed to it. The Canadian forces has tested several
personnel who had potentially been exposed to depleted uranium
and the tests were negative. The total uranium radiation was
below detectable limits.
[Translation]
I must point out to the House that Canada does not use depleted
uranium at the moment and that there is no plan to acquire
depleted uranium ammunition for the Canadian armed forces.
The arsenal of some countries currently includes depleted
uranium ammunition. For a ban to be viable and make sense, the
countries in question would have to be convinced to do without
their depleted uranium ammunition, something that seems unlikely
in the near future.
[English]
IRAN
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I recently asked
the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the consequences of the
elections in Iran.
About a year ago I had the great opportunity of visiting Iran
and met a lot of the young people and the authorities. I was
extremely impressed by the young dynamic population of that
country. More than 50% of the population is under the age of 25.
These young people want changes. That was obviously indicated in
the consequences of the recent elections.
The president, Mr. Khatami, is a very positive individual. He
wrote a book called “Dialogue of Civilizations”. He is very
interested in having a dialogue with other countries and has a
very positive view of what Iran can do and the role it can play
in the world today. We see a real change in attitude.
In the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade this morning, we had a group of responsible Canadian
businessmen who are presently very active in this area. They
told us that they could see real signs of change in Iran. There
is co-operation between the Iranian and western authorities about
controlling the drug trade with Afghanistan. There is a lot of
effort on behalf of the Iranian authorities to collaborate with
other countries.
On the other hand, there are very disturbing indications in that
country. The army is still in control and in the hands of the
supreme leader, the Ayatollah. The security apparatus is not in
the hands of democratically elected officials. The courts
consist of clerics who are not responsive to change and the
police carry on rather arbitrary activities which threaten the
lives of ordinary citizens. We see arbitrary actions of
authority.
We see things like the way in which tax laws are applied. I was
told by a group of businessmen when I was there that the
arbitrariness of the tax laws is such that it is very hard to get
foreign investors in the country because they do not really know
the nature of the regime they are going into. They do not have
the juridical security they would like to have.
1915
We now come to today's situation and we are looking at some
months since the last elections. There is a parliamentary
majority in favour of reform. I would like to follow up my
earlier question by asking the parliamentary secretary if he
could tell us a bit about the changes that are taking place.
We still read in the newspapers about how they are seized. The
morality police are still harassing young people. There is a
question as to the courts and how responsive they are. There is
a concern which I raised in the House today about the trial of a
group of Jewish citizens of Iran which is taking place on
Thursday and the nature of the protection they will receive and
the nature of religious freedom that is taking place in the
country.
It looks as if this is a case of two steps forward and one step
back. I suppose that is true in all political situations. I
would like to know what we are doing about it. What are we doing
to encourage change? How are we helping Iranians who want change
to get change? What visits are MPs, ministers and trade
officials making? It seems to me that now is the time to move.
Now is the time to encourage those in authority in Iran to open
their country.
I would like to suggest that we might be a bit more active. I
would like to encourage the government to help and encourage the
forces of change in Iran, and restrict the movement of those who
wish to stop change, for the benefit of all Iranians.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the February 18 legislative
elections in Iran profoundly changed the balance of political
power in the country. The reformers of President Khatami won a
majority of the seats. Canada congratulates the people of Iran
for honouring the democratic spirit of the elections and voting
in such large numbers.
We think the electoral process was open and fair and that it
truly reflected the democratic will of the Iranian people.
Results indicate that Iran is turning toward a more democratic
system based on the rule of law and far removed from the
ideological inflexibility of the past.
With the presidential elections and the municipal elections in
March 1999, this makes three times there has been a heavy
pro-reform vote by the people of Iran.
Canada hopes that the path the Iranian people has chosen will
make it possible to renew connections with Teheran and to ensure
the ongoing reintegration of Iran into the international
community. The government of President Khatami has done a great
deal to improve its relations with its Arab neighbours and has
turned to the West in hopes of expanding its relationships still
further.
Canada has adopted a policy of limited engagement toward Iran,
which restricts official visits between the two countries to the
deputy ministerial level. The reason for the policy was Canada's
concerns with Iran's human rights position, as well as its
support of international terrorism, its opposition to the Middle
East peace process and its support to groups that reject that
process, and its search for weapons of massive destruction.
Although we are greatly encouraged by the outcome of these
elections, we are now waiting to see improvements in these
strategic areas of concern. We have seen some progress as far as
human rights are concerned; the Baha'i are now allowed to
register their marriages, thus improving the status of their
children. The government has, moreover, declared that it will
hold a public trial for the 13 Iranian Jews and others who were
arrested a year ago and charged with spying for Israel and the
United States.
Canada has made it clear to the Iranian government that the
suffering of these individuals is still of considerable concern
to it, and that it did not see its way clear to normalize
relations between the two countries as long as Iran had not
resolved the situation to Canada's satisfaction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.18 p.m.)