36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 82
CONTENTS
Monday, April 10, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| 1911 CENSUS RECORDS
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1110
1115
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1120
| Mr. David Price |
1125
1130
| Mr. John Duncan |
1135
1140
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1150
1155
| Mr. John Cannis |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1250
(Division 1265)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Report stage
|
| Bill C-23. Report stage
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1255
1300
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1305
1310
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1330
1335
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1340
1345
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1350
1355
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1400
| CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| CANADIAN MILITIA
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| SUMMERHILL STREET SCHOOL
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
1405
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| CANADIAN WOMEN'S HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| ARMED FORCES DAY
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| ATLANTIC FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| SACKVILLE RIVER'S ASSOCIATION
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| MILLENNIUM BUREAU OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| LOBBYISTS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. John Manley |
| BIOTEC CANADA
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. John Manley |
1430
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. John Manley |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1435
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1440
| NATIONAL REVENUE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1445
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. John Manley |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| THE SENATE
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1450
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1455
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1500
| GUN REGISTRY
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1505
| PETITIONS
|
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mammography
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Immigration
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Marriage
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Child Poverty
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Hepatitis Awareness Month
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Report stage
|
1510
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1515
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
1520
1525
| Mr. John Williams |
1530
1535
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1540
1545
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1550
1555
| Division on Motion No. 1 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 5 deferred
|
| Division No. 7 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 113 deferred
|
1600
| Division on Motion No. 144 deferred.
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Motions Nos. 117 to 133
|
1605
1610
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1615
1620
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1625
1630
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1635
1640
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1645
1650
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. John Harvard |
1710
1715
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1720
1725
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1730
1735
| Mr. Randy White |
1740
1745
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1750
1755
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1800
1805
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1810
1815
| Division on Motion No. 117 deferred
|
1835
1840
(Division 1266)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
1845
(Division 1267)
| Motion No. 3 negatived
|
1850
(Division 1268)
| Motion No. 4 negatived
|
1900
(Division 1269)
| Motion No. 5 negatived
|
1910
(Division 1270)
| Motion No. 7 negatived
|
1915
(Division 1271)
| Motion No. 113 negatived
|
1925
(Division 1272)
| Motion No. 115 negatived
|
1930
(Division 1273)
| Motion No. 144 negatived
|
1935
(Division 1274)
| Motion No. 117 negatived
|
1940
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1950
(Division 1275)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1955
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 82
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 10, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
1911 CENSUS RECORDS
The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central
to speak in support of Motion No. 160 presented by my colleague,
the chief critic for national revenue, the Canadian Alliance
member for Calgary Southeast. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they
have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.
The purpose of the motion is to release post-1901 census data to
the general public.
The motion has received a broad base of support from various
members of the House, not just Canadian Alliance members. In
addition, many MPs have received letters of concern from
genealogists in their constituencies.
In Surrey Central I have received letters asking for the release
of post-1901 census records. For example, Don Ellis of Surrey
Central has been writing to me since I was elected. He points
out that the Access to Information Act protects the census
information from being abused while it allows for the benefits of
the release of this information.
Mr. Ellis stated in his letter:
Previous census records have been released, and they have been of
invaluable assistance to those of us researching our ancestry.
We have long awaited the release of the 1911 census, and of
future records, to give us additional information.
Apparently, the Privacy Act is being given as the reason for
withholding these records. This is ridiculous in view of the
freedom of information act.
Another constituent wrote to me, who said:
I have recently been made aware that our government has placed a
closure on all future census records and that the 1901 census
will be the last one available for public research. I would like
to voice my objection to this unfortunate decision.
As an amateur genealogist and the family historian I have made
extensive use of census records both Canadian and British and
cannot overstate the value of this source in establishing family
relationships. They are one of genealogy's most valuable
resources and should not be allowed to be permanently closed.
Since the United States has made available the 1920 census and
is in the process of preparing the 1930 census for release I
would like to know the rationale behind Statistics Canada's
decision. I believe the former ninety year closure to be more
than adequate to protect the privacy of any individual.
Another constituent, Robert Paulin, has been generous with his
information and has encouraged the official opposition to take
action to release these records that are almost a century old.
Strong families make strong communities. Stronger communities
make stronger nations. The government refrains from doing
anything and everything that makes families strong, whether it is
the definition of marriage or not reducing taxes, which creates a
tremendous burden on family members.
1110
Many years ago only one member of the family worked. Now both
parents work, but still they are saving less. All of these
constraints are weakening the family institution.
The institution of the family is important and the government
needs to do everything it can to strengthen it.
Some of the letters and representations I have received are from
people in the business of researching family trees. There is a
significant demand for these services. The withholding of the
census data threatens these jobs and the firms conducting this
research, and deprives the beneficiaries of important sentimental
information.
In my own family, my wife's great grandfather died in Canada,
but we are unable to learn of his whereabouts since the census
information has not been released.
Census data is important information for historical research,
especially for those researching family history. Without
releasing the information contained in the 1911 census this
research is seriously hampered.
Finally, it should be noted that the vast majority of those who
participated in the census have passed on and, as such, the
potential for breach of privacy is minimal.
Up to and including the 1901 census in Canada census records
were transferred to the National Archives and were subsequently
made available to the public 92 years after their collection.
This was possible because clauses in the Privacy Act allowed for
the subtraction of certain pieces of information and their
release to the National Archives, subject to certain aspects of
the Privacy Act.
In 1906 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by order in council, legislated
regulations that brought about an imposed secrecy on enumerators
and other officers of the Census and Statistics Office. These
regulations refer to chapter 68 of the Revised Statutes of
Canada, 1906, an act respecting the census and statistics.
Within this ruling section 26 of the regulations stated that
the compilation of census data could only be used for statistical
purposes. By 1918 this regulation was codified, providing that
no one could view the information without the express consent of
the individual. Unfortunately, no time limit was given and,
combined with a legal opinion of the justice department of 1985,
it was interpreted that the information had to remain secret
forever.
Some historians believe that the original 1906 and 1918
provisions had to do with a prevailing concern that the census
data could be used for taxation purposes or military service. It
is doubtful that the prevailing concern of the time was that
historians would use the data some 100 years later.
In a most recent report, the privacy commissioner, Bruce
Phillips, warned the industry minister that the release of census
data could seriously hamper the accuracy of future census and
renege on a previous commitment to secrecy. The industry
minister has nonetheless asked Statistics Canada to undertake a
study of options to amend the legislation in this regard by
either retroactively changing the confidentiality provisions from
1911 onward or by amending the legislation for censuses taken
from 2001 onward.
If Canada were to place its census data under lock and key
forever it would sadly be far out of step with many other western
nations. For example, in the United States census data is
released after 72 years and an individual can retrieve his or her
own data at any time. In Australia census data is released after
100 years. In France census data is released after 100 years.
In Denmark census data is released after 65 years, and in the
United Kingdom efforts are being made to release data after 100
years.
It is now two years later. We are still waiting for something to
be done by the government.
1115
In conclusion, the panel will report to the minister by the end
of May 2000. Hopefully the motion we are debating today will
spur the minister to take action.
By the way, I had written earlier to the industry minister. To
be fair, his original response to me was on the government's
line, that they could not release the information. I wrote back
to him and the chief statistician responded, admitting that the
minister directed him to develop options for changing the
legislation.
It appeared that the minister was going to pay some attention to
the matter in order to release this information, which was
positive news until we realized that he had struck a panel to
study the matter. We urge the government to release this
important information so that we can strengthen the institution
of family and thereby strengthen our nation.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, many
historians, genealogists and researchers had expected that the
1911 census records would be publicly available in 2003, 92 years
after the taking of the census. They were dismayed to find out
that this was not to be the case.
Canada's censuses up to and including 1901 were taken on the
acts of parliament which did not contain a specific
confidentiality provision having the force of law. As a result
census records up to and including the 1901 census have been
transferred to the national archives and are now available for
public access. However, starting with the 1906 census, access to
individual census records is explicitly prohibited by law.
There seems to be a general perception that Statistics Canada
has taken an arbitrary position on the matter and is simply
refusing to release the 1911 census records. This is certainly
not the case. In fact, the agency is respecting the legislation
for which censuses have been taken since 1906. Starting in 1906,
the legislation giving authority to collect census information
contains statutory confidentiality provisions. These provisions
are such that only the person named in the record may have access
to his or her own information.
There is also a time limitation on this access. Even when the
person is deceased, the provisions are still in effect. As a
result, Statistics Canada cannot make public census records taken
under the authority of the 1906 and all subsequent statistics
acts without breaching the Statistics Act.
Statistics Canada continues to hold all individual returns of
census questionnaires collected between 1906 and 1991. These
records are on microfilm and extracts are made available only to
individual respondents who need to confirm birth dates for
pension purposes, passports, et cetera.
I would like to make the point that information from the current
census records can be released only when written consent of the
person named in the record or the person's legal representative
has been provided.
Also Statistics Canada has never considered the destruction of
the 1906 and later census records. These records have been
transferred to microfilm and the original paper questionnaires
have been destroyed in accordance with approvals given by the
National Archives of Canada.
We all agree that historians, genealogists and researchers have
legitimate reasons for wanting access to historical census
records. We also have to recognize and respect the right to
privacy of individual Canadians and their ancestors. While
there is undeniably great value attached to nominative historical
census records, this is where an important principle of privacy
protection comes into play.
The House is being asked to retroactively alter the conditions
under which information was provided by Canadians. Is this
right? The privacy commissioner strongly opposes a retroactive
amendment to the Statistics Act which would allow the transfer of
individually identifiable census records to the National Archives
of Canada for archival and access purposes.
1120
The commissioner is of the view that allowing third party access
to census records for such purposes constitutes a use that is
inconsistent with the guarantee of confidentiality that
Statistics Canada gave to Canadians when collecting their
personal information. He is also of the view that it constitutes
a violation of fundamental privacy principles requiring that the
personal information be used only for the purpose for which it
was collected.
On the other hand, many historians and archivists view Canada's
census as a national treasure that must be preserved. They argue
that the census should be available after a reasonable period of
time in order to conduct research which will shed light on the
personal and community histories of Canadians.
Another argument often used to access Canadian census records is
that census records in the United States and the United Kingdom
are publicly accessible. I would like to remind my colleagues
that this is an issue of different legislation and perhaps of
culture when it comes to the taking of a census.
While there is undeniably great value attached to historical
census records, there is also great value attached to the
aggregate information that can be produced from current and
future censuses. Much of this value is contained in various
pieces of legislation. For example, population counts play a
vital role in determining the amount and allocation of
federal-provincial transfer payments for Canada health and social
transfers, equalization and territorial formula financing. These
payments were established at $39 billion in 2000-01 and the
census is required to allocate them.
Statistics Canada feels that the most important factor
contributing to respondent co-operation is the unconditional
guarantee given to respondents that the information they supply
will be protected. Canada, for almost 100 years, has been able
to unconditionally guarantee the confidentiality of the
information supplied in the census.
Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could
have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to
future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such
co-operation could jeopardize Statistics Canada's ability to
carry out its national mandate of producing reliable and timely
information.
The minister recognizes the importance of historical research
but also must take into account the privacy concerns of
Canadians. This is why he has created the expert panel on access
to historical census records. This panel of eminent Canadians
will look at the issues and provide an approach which would
balance the need to protect personal privacy with the demands of
genealogists and historians for access to historical census
records.
The five member panel, which is chaired by Dr. Richard Van Loon,
president of Carleton University, has been asked to make
recommendations to the minister by May 31, 2000. The panel has
been provided with all relevant documents and information on this
matter. The panel is reviewing this information and is meeting
with key stakeholders to seek their views.
In my view the House should wait for the expert panel on access
to historical census records to make its recommendations before
voting on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise to address the motion raised by the
member for Calgary Southeast with respect to the release of the
post-1901 census records.
In recent months, a number of genealogists and historians have
articulated their collective disappointment that the 1911 census
records will not be available for review in the public domain in
the year 2003. These individuals had previously expected the
1911 census records to be made available for research purposes
in this particular year because census records have been, up to
this point, accessible to the public after 92 years.
However, censuses administered after 1901 fall subject to the
Statistics Act that explicitly prohibits the release of all
census records. This prohibition does not allow anyone to
access census records for any reason; the only exception is that
an individual may access his or her own personal records—but that
is the only current exception.
1125
An individual may not access the census records of anyone else,
not even those belonging to his or her immediate family members,
nor even those records belonging to members of his ancestral
family tree.
The dilemma here is quite clear. And yet, it is quite difficult
to resolve. We have two competing interests that present a
difficult case for the House. On the one hand, we have the
reality of statutory integrity, upon which our nation is founded
and, on the other, the practical idealism presented to us by
historical curiosity.
Many have argued that the release of census records is crucial
to furthering the knowledge Canadians hold of their past, of
their communities, of their families, and of themselves.
Access to census records is what enables individuals, scholars,
researchers, and historians alike to trace their respective
histories and to answer questions about their past: from
questions as simple as when exactly one's ancestry arrived in
Canada, to questions as nationally significant as the face of
the brave men who fought and defended Canada in the first World
War. Answering these questions can indeed teach Canadians a lot
about themselves and about their origins.
In fact, Canadian historians have called upon these records to
answer these and countless other questions which offer great
insights into our history as a people.
As such, the availability of census returns up to 1901 has been
a tremendous resource for researchers in search of information
with respect to housing, health, income, and general social
conditions of the day. But, again, researchers have been able
to conduct their invaluable research based upon the laws in
place before 1906 which authorized the release of these census
records 92 years after they were taken.
For the first time, census data will not be available to
Canadians come the year 2003, the year during which census data
from 1911 would have been made available in the National
Archives for public reference.
Now, however, those who argue that the census records should be
released to the public argue that respect for statutory
integrity and privacy is important.
In 1906, when the change was made that all future censuses would
be kept confidential and rendered forever inaccessible,
legislators made a commitment to Canadians. This commitment was
that Canadians' responses to census questions would not be
divulged to anyone.
The federal government currently requires Canadian residents to
answer increasingly intrusive and intimate questions on its
censuses. These questions included proddings into Canadians'
marital status, physical characteristics, nationality, ethnic
origin, wages earned, insurance held, educational attainment,
and also proddings into respondents' infirmities and sicknesses.
Clearly, the government census is not an everyday survey or
questionnaire—it is very involved and it can also make for quite
a personal experience. In fact, census data are now collected
every five years, instead of every ten, as they once were.
[English]
Most Canadians will readily answer these questions and willingly
provide the federal government with the information it requests.
Others will be more hesitant to divulge their personal
information. Still, because the federal government requires
Canadians to do so under fear of fine or imprisonment, everyone
ends of answering all the questions.
Why? Why do they answer these intrusive questions? What puts
their minds at ease in divulging this information? It is no more
than the federal government's unqualified guarantee of
confidentiality that allows Canadians to answer these very
personal questions.
This guarantee is what convinced Canadians to divulge so much of
themselves dating back to 1911, the guarantee offered by the
federal government through the Statistics Act, and that remains
the pledge the government has made to Canadians regarding their
privacy.
Would Canadians so willingly and accurately provide this
information otherwise?
1130
Here is our dilemma. The Laurier government promised that the
information collected in the census after 1901 would remain
confidential. The interesting part is no one is sure why this
promise was made. Archival records indicate that the
confidentiality provision was designed to reassure citizens that
census enumerators would not pass along the information to tax
collectors or military conscription personnel. Archival records
or not, it remains unclear why these privacy provisions are in
existence.
It is true that our world has changed dramatically since 1901.
We have cultural values. While today we place the utmost
importance on personal issues, back then according to the
information, the reason for keeping census records forever
confidential was the fear that information would be leaked to tax
collectors and military personnel, not because they wanted to
keep the information confidential for eternity. Canadians'
concerns in 1906 were short term, to keep the information away
from the taxman and from the military. We cannot be certain the
goal was to keep information from historians.
It is of the utmost importance that we do not bar Canadians
access to their history. In a relatively young country such as
ours, we must do everything we can to promote and encourage our
history and heritage. In so doing we perpetuate and strengthen
Canadian sovereignty.
I appreciate the concern for statutory integrity and privacy
interests. However, the releasing of census records after 92
years would not pose an infringement on statutory integrity nor
be an invasion of privacy. After 92 years those who completed
the census as adults are likely to be deceased, at which point
the concern for privacy is less important.
Furthermore, Canadians today have been quite vocal in their
support for releasing census records for research purposes. Given
the overwhelming support for the release of records, we in the
House cannot ignore the call of Canadians. This is an instance
where the sensibilities of what Canadians feel is right and
justifiable must be taken into account. If Canadians of today do
not see the release of census records as an infringement on the
privacy rights of Canadians of yesterday, then we as legislators
have a duty to listen to their collective voice.
If Canadians today wish to retain access to census records 92
years after a census has been administered, then given the
precedence set in the period leading up to 1911, we should
accommodate them. In doing so we would be accommodating
ourselves as well. Research into our history as a people and as
a nation may only be furthered by allowing access to these
invaluable records.
I offer my support for the motion brought forward by the member
for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Motion No.
160. I congratulate my colleague for bringing the motion
forward.
A very interesting thing is happening in current society. In
the field of genealogy today people are currently looking at the
past.
I recently heard a lecture given by Steve Dotto. I believe he
has a regular program on CBC where he talks about the Internet,
computers and so on. He said that there has been a tremendous
growth in the interest in genealogy in the country and one reason
is that the Internet is such a good tool. He said if we want to
learn all of the various activities, the best training device and
lesson plan we could come up with particularly if we had a
natural interest in the subject would be to pursue the genealogy
of our own families. All the lessons we need in order to learn
how to effectively use the Internet would come through that field
of endeavour and study.
1135
It is interesting that at the very time there is this burgeoning
field in society current day families are looking more and more
at their roots and their past. We are looking at our
institutions with renewed enthusiasm. Whether it is the
military, the RCMP, the church or other important institutions in
society, there is a renewed interest in all of them. We see it
on November 11 with the increasing turnout of people at
Remembrance Day ceremonies.
At the very time when all this renewed interest is happening we
have run into a brick wall potentially on the release of census
data. This data is from the 1911 census. The 1901 census data
was available in 1993. The major period of migration to Canada
was between the start of the 20th century and the beginning of
World War I in 1914. There are millions of Canadians whose first
ancestors arrived in Canada during that period. We must take
that into account.
There was an expectation on the part of virtually everyone that
the data was going to be available in 2003. Some minds figured
out that is not going to happen. It all changed because of a
regulation in 1906. Although it is largely speculative, we know
that they were not thinking about what the circumstances would be
90 or 100 years down the road. Logic dictates that the reason
the release of census data collected was pre-empted at that time
had to do with everyday concerns about conscription, what the
military or the taxman might do with the data for people who
completed the information.
That is the way the regulations read at the time. Looking back
on it we know in current terms if we use the natural lifespan of
people that a 90 or a 100 year release of census data addresses
privacy concerns.
What do some other western democracies do with their census
data? It is important to make a comparison. The U.S. releases
its data after 72 years; Australia, 100; France, 100; Denmark,
65; and in the U.K. efforts are under way to release the
information after 100 years. There has been some concern about
retroactive alteration of confidentiality requirements and the
whole subject of a privacy guarantee that was made when the data
was collected.
I cannot think of a single way individuals will be negatively
impacted by releasing data 90 or 100 years later. Therefore I
cannot think of a single way this will negatively impact
participation by the population at large in current census
collection. It will put us in step with other western
democracies.
The major point I am trying to make is that the motion is very
worthy of our support to ensure that the 1911 census data is
released in 2003.
For the 1921 census and others in the future there is lots of
time to come up with a very structured response to how the data
will be released. In the meantime it is important to address the
very specific issue on the 1911 census.
1140
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate. I was not planning to do so
but I have been listening to the debate and my own private poll
would indicate the people with whom I have spoken recognize there
was a law passed in 1911 and that not many people today
understand why the law came into effect. Now there is an expert
panel which has been appointed by the industry minister to try to
resolve this by the end of next month.
I intend to be very brief in my remarks. I concur with the
motion that is before the House this morning. I would hope that
the expert panel chaired by the president of Carleton University
would pay attention to what has been said here in debate by the
previous speakers on this topic and those who intend to take part
in it.
If I may just interject a personal note, my uncle wrote a
relatively readable book on the history of his mother's family.
They emigrated to Canada from the area of Virginia around 1776
because they supported the king in the war of the colonies. My
uncle's book traced the history since then. I am sure he did that
based on many of the tables that were available to him through
the archives and other areas. Now we are told that beginning
with 1911 the records are not available because a law of which
nobody seems to know the history says the records will be sealed
in perpetuity.
Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips, a former well-known
television newsman, seems to have sided solely with privacy that
would protect people into the grave and beyond. For the life of
me I cannot understand why after 92 or 100 years there would be a
real problem. If there are people or families who are concerned
about this it would be interesting to hear them speak out on the
topic but we certainly are not aware of them to the very best of
my knowledge.
Mr. Phillips the Privacy Commissioner has said “People who give
information to the government under penalty of law and an
unqualified promise of confidentiality are entitled to expect
that that trust will be honoured”. Nobody would disagree with
that but the question must be asked for how long, for 92 or 100
years? At what point do these competing demands take effect and
the interests of amateur historians, genealogists and researchers
come to the fore?
The previous speaker mentioned the migration and immigration to
western Canada that took part in the early years of this century.
The prairies were filled out at that time and people want to
know what happened in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba as well
as the other provinces and territories.
I want to make it clear, and I am sure there will be differences
of opinion in all caucuses on this, that this is a private
member's motion on which it is everyone's right to vote. I will
support the motion when we vote on it. At the same time I will be
watching with interest to see what the committee of experts
decides when it reports to the industry minister on May 31. But
for the life of me, I cannot figure out why we would not want to
pass on information about our ancestors and allow it to be
studied by those who are alive now as opposed to protecting those
who have been deceased for some time.
1145
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in the House today to speak
about this very important issue. I want to say at the outset
that I have had a number of calls from constituents with respect
to this matter.
It is a matter of great importance, not only from a genealogical
point of view but also from an historic point of view. It is
something that we on the government side have indicated we take
seriously and want to take a very strong, fast and hard look at
all the options with respect to where we should go on this all
important matter.
I remind my colleagues in the House that the transfer of census
records to the national archives for public access is a very
complex issue. Although historians, genealogists and researchers
have legitimate reasons for wanting access to historical census
records, we have to balance that and at least weigh in the
respect and the right to privacy for individual Canadians and
their ancestors.
It is a balancing act and one on which we have to give careful
thought in this very important and delicate matter. I want to
point out that the minister and the government have gone on
record as doing precisely that.
The motion before us, while perhaps of some interest to some
people, is really premature based on the fact that our minister
and our government have moved in this area. We are taking a look
at exploring and reviewing the options. In so doing, it is
important to note that the minister has created an expert panel
of eminent Canadians to provide independent insight into this
very important issue, where expert advice on legalities and
privacy in archival matters are explored and the implications
looked into in a meaningful way which will bring credibility to
the process.
The five member panel is comprised of: Dr. Richard Van Loon, who
is president of Carleton University with a long history,
including with the federal government; Chad Gaffield, director at
the institute for Canadian studies and professor of history at
the University of Ottawa; the Honourable Gérard La Forest, a
retired supreme court justice; the Honourable Lorna Marsden,
president and vice-chancellor at York University and former
president of my alma mater Wilfrid Laurier University; and John
McCamus, president of Osgoode Hall Law School at York University
in Toronto.
The members of the panel were chosen with great care and are
highly regarded Canadians who have a great deal of insight into
these matters. They were appointed on the basis of individual
merit for their expertise and their long term interest in
historical research and privacy issues.
The minister has asked the panel to recommend by May 31 of this
year an approach that balances the need to protect personal
privacy with the demand of genealogists, historians and others
who want access to historical census records.
Access to individual census records for all censuses starting
with the 1906 census is explicitly prohibited by law while census
records up to and including the 1901 census are publicly
available through the National Archives. These records are in a
public domain because the censuses up to and including the 1901
census were conducted under legislation that did not contain a
specific confidentiality provision having the force of law.
However, access to individual census records for all censuses
starting the the 1906 census is explicitly prohibited by law.
Starting in 1906 and for all subsequent censuses thereafter, the
legislation giving the authority to collect census information
containing statutory confidentiality provisions was in place.
These provisions are such that only the person named in the
record may have access to his or her own information.
There is also no time limitation on this access. Even when the
person is deceased, the provisions are still in effect. As a
result, Statistics Canada, without breaching the Statistics Act,
cannot, according to law, make public the census records taken
under the authority of the 1906 and all subsequent Statistics
Acts.
1150
This has of course—and it is apparent as a result of the
correspondence certainly that I get and other members of
parliament—dismayed many genealogists and researchers who had
expected that the 1911 census and the records would be publicly
available in 2003, 92 years after the taking of that census. They
argue, and some would say rightly so, that the census should be
available after a reasonable period of time in order to conduct
research that historians, genealogists and others like to do,
which would shed light on the personal and community history of
Canadians across the country. They would like to see a change in
the Statistics Act which would confirm that census records would
be available after 92 years.
There may be a perception that Statistics Canada has taken an
arbitrary position in this matter and is circumventing
regulations under the Privacy Act. That is certainly not the
case. The agency is respecting the legislation under which
censuses have been taken since 1906. It is after all the law.
As members of the House are aware, the Statistics Act, like any
law, can be amended. While there is undeniably great value
attached to nominative historical census records, this is where
an important principle of privacy protection comes into play. Is
it right to alter retroactively the conditions under which
information was collected by Canadians and provided by them? It
is a question that we need to look at and grapple with.
The privacy commissioner, Mr. Bruce Phillips, says no. He
strongly opposes a retroactive amendment to the Statistics Act
which would alter and allow the transfer of individually
identifiable census records collected during past censuses, 1906
to 1991 to be precise, to the National Archives of Canada for
archival and access purposes.
While there is undeniably great value attached to historic
census records, there is also great value attached to the
aggregate information that can be produced from current and
future censuses as well. That information is and will be used
for a multiplicity of purposes, and as genealogists and
historians know, that is very important.
Changes to the commitments made to respondents in the past could
have a negative impact on the level of co-operation given to
future censuses and surveys. A substantial decrease in such
co-operation could seriously jeopardize Statistics Canada and its
ability to carry out its national mandate of producing reliable,
timely information on which many users depend. It is very
accurate and it is known throughout the world as being a good
model, which many countries copy.
Census information is used for a multiplicity of purposes, as I
have noted. For example, population counts play a vital role in
determining the amount and the allocation of federal-provincial
transfer payments for the Canada health and social transfers,
equalization and territorial formula financing. These payments
were estimated at $39 billion in the year 2000-01 and the census
is required to allocate them.
The census also provides comprehensive information for analysis
of the social and economic issues of concerns to all Canadians.
These issues include education, training, language use,
immigration, multiculturalism, income support, child and elder
care, housing programs and many other issues, all of which are
relied upon as a result of the information gathered.
Before I conclude I want to remind my colleagues that census
information is a fundamental pillar of our democratic system. We
have a great system. We need to promote it. We need to protect
it. We need to ensure that it survives into the 21st century.
That is our job, not only as parliamentarians but also as
Canadians.
The data from the census is one that measures indicators that
electors use to evaluate the performance of their government.
This must never be taken lightly. I know that members in the
House do not.
1155
With the minister having appointed the panel and the government
having recommended that we proceed, it is my position that we
should now go forward and hear what that panel of experts has to
say. After that, we will be in a far better position to make
subsequent decisions that affect Canadians.
I recommend that we let the process take its course. We should
listen to those best suited to give us that good advice and
proceed accordingly.
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the
opportunity to participate in this debate.
I thank all my Liberal colleagues who have participated in the
debate. I especially want to thank the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington for not only acknowledging the effort of the
member of the Canadian Alliance but for very clearly pointing out
the efforts the government has undertaken with respect to this
issue.
This is an important issue. Many Canadians have asked us about
the census and we have an obligation to respond to their
concerns. However, I, too, want to take this opportunity to
re-emphasize to Canadians exactly what is happening.
With the greatest of respect to the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast, I must say that as much as his motion makes a lot of
sense, the government and the Minister of Industry have already
taken the initiative, as was so eloquently pointed out by my
Liberal colleague, to put a panel together to look at this most
important issue.
I do compliment the effort by the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast, but it is premature. We owe it to each and every
Canadian to wait until the end of May when the panel will report
back with its findings and tells us “This is what we have done.
This is the information we have gathered. This is our opinion
and this is our view”. I am confident that at that time, not
only the Minister of Industry, who is the minister responsible
for Statistics Canada, but all of us in the House will make that
decision on which direction to go in.
The date the panel will report back is May 31, 2000. Canadians
who want to maintain the protection of personal information and
those who would like to examine personal information or
communities, historically speaking, will have the opportunity at
the appropriate time to participate.
My Liberal colleague talked about the members of the panel, who
are prominent Canadians. I will take this opportunity to tell
Canadians who they are so they can be assured that the people
looking into this most important issue are indeed people who are
well recognized and well respected and have the expertise and the
knowledge to face this most important issue.
The five member panel is chaired by Dr. Richard Van Loon,
president of Carleton University. The other members are Chad
Gaffield, director, institute of Canadian studies and professor
of history, University of Ottawa; the Hon. Gérard La Forest,
retired supreme court judge; the Hon. Lorna Marsden, president
and vice-chancellor, York University; and John McCamus, professor
of law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University.
These prominent Canadians reflect how seriously the government
is taking this issue. These individuals will do what is right.
When they come to the government and the minister with their
recommendations, I assure all the people who are interested in
this important issue that we will take it as seriously as the
hon. member for Calgary Southeast has in bringing forth this
motion.
1200
The panel has been provided with all relevant documents and
information so that it can do a proper job. The panel is
reviewing this information and is meeting with key stakeholders
to seek their views. It will not only be these five members
doing the work. They will be reaching out to various members in
various communities right across Canada to make sure that the
data is transparent and well received. The panel's
recommendations will be the basis for serious review and
immediate follow-up by the government.
Although historians, genealogists and researchers are upset that
the 1906 and subsequent census records will not be accessible to
the public and are asking that the legislation be amended, the
privacy commissioner strongly opposes a retroactive amendment to
the Statistics Canada Act which would provide access to
individually identifiable census records collected in past
censuses.
This is a complicated issue. I want to detail what historical
census records are available to the public at the present time.
All microfilm records of the 1901 and earlier censuses are
currently available to the public and are under the control of
the National Archives of Canada. I want the people of Canada to
know that because there is a perception that everything is locked
away and hidden and not available to Canadians. That is simply
not the case.
People ask where historical census records are available. All
microfilm records of censuses taken in 1901 and earlier are
currently available to the public and are under the control of
the National Archives. Provincial archives in many regional
libraries have also acquired copies of the same records. Local
libraries can request census microfilms through interlibrary
exchange programs.
Why are the earlier census records available to the public and
not later ones? Many Canadians have been asking this question
and I would like to take a few moments to explain.
The earlier censuses were conducted under various census acts
which did not contain the same type of confidentiality provisions
that are a fundamental part of Statistics Canada legislation
today. Consequently, it was not until the passing of the Privacy
Act in 1983 that there was some legislative authority governing
these 1901 and earlier records. Under the Privacy Act
information under the control of the National Archives can be
placed in the public domain in cases where the information was
obtained through a census or survey 92 years ago.
This is an issue which the average Canadian often does not
understand. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate to outline to
Canadians exactly what this issue is about so that they can feel
comfortable that this government, previous governments or future
governments do not have a big brother image over them, collect
information, lock it up and use it as they so choose. That is
simply not the case. That is why I am taking this opportunity to
put Canadians at ease as to what exactly happens with the
information we gather.
The government has taken the bull by the horns. It has
undertaken an initiative to move forward positively. In saying
this, again, I compliment the member for Calgary Southeast
because I know he cares. His heart is where it should be. He is
attempting to ensure that each and every Canadian, organization
and facility has access to this information.
The Minister of Industry and the government recognize the
importance of historical records. We have also taken the
opportunity to point out our concern. There are privacy
concerns. By the end of May we will be in a position to respond
properly.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
BILL C-23—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes
of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of
the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be
allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government
business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report
stage and on the day allotted for the third reading stage of the
said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted,
if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every
question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then
under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCormick
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 124
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Desjarlais
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Hanger
| Harris
| Harvey
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| Ménard
| Meredith
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ritz
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
|
Vellacott – 65
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I declare the motion agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from April 3 consideration of Bill C-23, an act to to
modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and
obligations, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and
of the motions in Group No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I wish to inform the
House that there has been a change in the voting pattern for the
report stage of Bill C-23, the details of which are available at
the table.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise
today to speak on behalf of my constituents against Bill C-23. We
have just witnessed closure on the bill, another timely action by
the government. I have actually lost track of how many times the
government has invoked it. It is getting to be a habit. It is
all the time.
Most of my constituents are upset with the content of the bill.
I will be expressing the views of thousands of them as well as
millions across Canada who have written in and sent in petitions
on the issue. The view is that institutions which provide the
historical, social, economic and legal foundations for the
country deserve more respect and consideration than is being
shown by this unaccountable government.
It is unaccountable because it has consistently sat back and
allowed questionable court decisions to dictate how it responds
to issues that concern Canadians. It has dragged its feet on
young offenders legislation and wandered aimlessly in the legal
wilderness while judges decided it was more important for
pedophiles to have access that victimizes children than for those
children to have a chance at a decent life free from
exploitation.
This leads us to wonder what is worse: to watch the Liberals
stumble over issues they do not want to deal with or to see them
intervene in areas they have chosen as their pet projects.
1255
Members on this side have expressed outrage over the
irresponsible dispensation of taxpayer money to multimillion
dollar corporations and other dubious projects that we have seen
in the last month or so.
We are fully aware that there can be good public spending, that
poor and vulnerable Canadians need a hand up at critical times in
their lives, but what we have seen instead is a disproportionate
amount of taxpayer dollars wasted on outdated concepts of what
constitutes economic prosperity.
What we see in Bill C-23 is an ill conceived and badly written
bill which attempts to address the concerns of one segment of
Canadian society by trampling on the sensibilities of society in
general. It is not just the so-called Christian right that is
uncomfortable with the implications of the bill but well meaning
Jewish and Muslim communities as well.
Average Canadians who express their beliefs about fairness and
equality in various ways are also concerned with the long term
impact of omnibus bills which purport to sweep away supposed
inequalities in one fell swoop.
It is not just the scope that is worrisome here. It is the
confusion and open-ended qualifications in Bill C-23 which should
stop the government and any clear thinking person in their
tracks.
Cabinet ministers are unclear about the meaning of conjugality
as it is used in the legislation. The justice minister rejected
the idea that public benefits should be based on dependency and
insisted that conjugal referred to the sexual union of a couple.
The Secretary of State for Multiculturalism disagreed and
expressed the idea that there were some requirements to fulfil in
order to be considered conjugal but not necessarily sexual.
They are asking Canadians to commit public money and the future
direction of social policy based on undefined opinions about who
might qualify and who might not. It is terribly irresponsible
because it allows the Liberals to take the easy way out: write a
big bill and let the courts settle it later. It sounds very
familiar.
Most Canadians realize it was the actions of the courts that
started all this in the first place and now we leave the future
of Canadian families to them again. The biggest loose end is the
absence of any definition of marriage, which our amendments will
seek to rectify. This is an issue that is providing all sorts of
amusement as various parties try to dance around the ultimate
intentions of Bill C-23.
The Liberals started out by claiming the bill was just about
addressing an equality issue raised in a court case. Supposedly
M v H required the redefinition of spouse, and so the government
scrambled to change hundreds of statutes to comply. That court
decision was really about redefining the responsibilities of
partners toward each other in relation to splitting up property,
but never let it be said that those without a backbone cannot
stand at attention when a judge makes a decision over there.
It was clear to everyone else that when hundreds of laws were
rewritten to change what it meant to be a spouse the result would
be the dilution of the sanctity of marriage, but the justice
minister kept up that fiction for a while. Public pressure
finally got to her. She announced last week that a definition of
marriage would be posted in the front of Bill C-23, which I
suppose undermines her assurances that Bill C-23 was not just
about marriage. Unfortunately putting it in the preamble gives
very little weight to the amendment. Canadians will not be
fooled by that.
That does not mean the confusion has gone away, especially not
in this place. On April 3 the member for Burnaby—Douglas began
his speech by suggesting that Bill C-23 had nothing to do with
marriage. Then he spent 10 minutes complaining that the
definition of marriage needed changing and he would not be
satisfied until that happened.
He introduced the notion that restricting marriage to
heterosexual relationships automatically rendered all other
relationships as inferior, although I would suggest that he is
taking this a little too personally and forgetting that there are
millions of Canadians in a variety of relationships who do not go
whining to the government for a pat on the back for every
decision they make in their personal lives.
The member also raised the point that marriage, and the laws
that have defined it, have changed over the years. He repeated
the old myth that the rule of thumb used to refer to the right of
a husband to beat his wife as long as his weapon of choice was no
thicker than his thumb. Winnipeg historian Gerry Bowler points
out that the rule of thumb is a reference from the lumber trade
and wife beating has always been illegal in England and its
colonies, including Canada.
Heated rhetoric aside, the point is taken that marriage and
divorce have been examined and redefined over the years. That
does not mean that there has been a continuous stream of blissful
progress, far from it. Divorce laws were liberalized in the
1970s and the implications of this are coming home to roost now.
The rate of common law relationships has risen faster than the
rate of traditional marriages in recent years. Lone parent
families are becoming more numerous. It is rare that Canadians
do not know other couples who are divorced if they themselves are
not among those statistics.
It has been widely documented that the implications of all this
include economic distress, personal breakdowns, increased stress
on social programs and systems, and a rise in youth crime and
anti-social behaviour.
1300
I do not need to exaggerate. In fact I will say that many
people successfully cope with everything thrown in their path.
But that does not mean it is good public policy to create these
stresses and then ask Canadian taxpayers to pay for them.
There is a good, better and best way to organize society, and we
are here to make sure we do what is best. Not everybody will
agree with the decisions, but sometimes it is right to say no.
Some people would argue that what we see happening in society is
a lot of people making personal decisions and governments having
no moral authority to dictate what those choices should be.
There is confusion over the obligations and entitlements of
individuals and a deliberate blurring of the lines between what
affects an individual and what applies to the group as a
collective.
Governments are responsible for the general conduct of society
and the preservation of its institutions. The best they can do
is lay down the guidelines for what is desirable or beneficial
behaviour for the greatest number and then make sure that all
law-abiding citizens are free to make the best lives for
themselves. Only when one citizen interferes in the rights of
another, especially when the vulnerable are being victimized by
the powerful, do governments have a duty to step in and use
guidelines to restore order.
The guidelines cannot be whimsical and they cannot be remade
every time another self-identified group rises to demand that
society recognize its special circumstances. That is not
tolerance or compassion. That is chaos and everybody in society
suffers as a result.
This does not mean that open societies cannot make
accommodations for legitimate demands, only that those demands
have to be held up to public scrutiny and be openly debated by a
broad representation of society. That is not what we are seeing
with Bill C-23.
Otherwise intelligent individuals are reduced to name-calling
and spurious references to try to get their points across.
Others, who are the first to complain if their free speech or
ability to express themselves is being trampled, are the first to
shout down their opponents and insult their beliefs.
This is an omnibus bill that wants to affect 68 statutes
covering 20 government departments, but it wants to do so with
ill-defined concepts, no provisions for co-operation among those
departments and no recognition that the bill is unsettling for
millions of Canadians on all sides of this debate.
In a Globe and Mail article dated March 18, 2000, several
gay men expressed reservations about having traditional forms of
entitlements and obligations imposed upon them. Toronto writer
R. M. Vaughan is quoted as saying:
I think this legislation codifies the larger battle in gay
culture between conservative elements who want to mimic
heterosexuals and think that is the path to freedom, and the
traditionalists, now turned upside down as radicals, who don't
want anything to do with straight norms.
The problem is that Bill C-23 introduces lawyers to the bedrooms
of the nation and drives thousands of couples to define their
relationship in terms of where they might fit on a bureaucratic
scale of benefits. Rather than impose equality on a wider range
of relationships, Bill C-23 would impose dozens more distinctions
for individual Canadians, and their personal decisions would come
under scrutiny and evaluation from faceless bureaucrats and
overpaid lawyers. As I mentioned earlier, there is a blurring of
the lines between what affects an individual and what applies to
a group.
The Liberals have said that Bill C-23 is not about marriage,
only about extending benefits. In 1996 the justice minister of
the day said that Bill C-33, at that time, was not about
extending benefits, just about putting sexual orientation into
the charter. There are many quotes which could verify that.
The member for Burnaby—Douglas asked if marriage was so fragile
that it could not stand to be pulled and stretched by the courts,
and of course the Liberals, in this way. In response the member
for Erie—Lincoln said that 20 years after benefits were extended
to opposite sex common law couples people were still getting
married in significant numbers.
There are over one million lone parent families, about 85% of
them headed by women. In many cases people are making personal
choices, although I am not sure that divorce is always a case of
choice. I am sure that many people come to regret the choices
they have made and we know that most of the children who do not
have a choice in the matter are not always well served by these
arrangements.
In answer to the members question, is marriage fragile? No, it
is as solid as a rock.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to begin by saying that this is a very delicate
matter. Bill C-23 is an issue of concern for Canadians on all
sides of the political spectrum.
I have taken a number of calls and representations made by my
constituents as to how they feel on both sides of this issue.
1305
At the end of the day, in this great parliament and across this
great country, it is a matter of fairness, tolerance and respect.
I object to the kinds of comments that have been made by members
opposite with respect to this all important matter. I object to
the myths, the falsehoods and the misinformation that people,
especially members opposite, have found it necessary to use to
stir up people, to try to pit people against people and group
against group in Canada, which prides itself on being a tolerant,
caring and compassionate society. It is important that we
proceed with Bill C-23 in a manner consistent with the great
values of Canada. I think that is precisely what we are doing.
I have listened to the comments of members opposite. I want to
be very clear that what is at stake are both rights and
obligations. The granting of same sex privileges will confer
certain rights and there will be obligations which will flow from
that. Let me also be clear that this bill, which has been
studied at committee and is now before us once again in the
House, deliberately maintains a clear legal distinction between
married and common law relationships.
We know that courts have ruled on this matter. We know that we
in the House are obliged to follow through with legislation. We
also know that equal treatment should be afforded in the law for
all Canadians, whomever they may be and wherever they may live,
common law opposite sex couples or common law same sex couples.
It makes no difference. We are talking about fairness,
compassion and equal treatment.
It remains for the government to choose how to achieve the goal
of equal treatment, and so it is that Bill C-23 represents the
government's choice to provide equal treatment while also
responding to the concerns of many Canadians about the need to
preserve the fundamental institution of marriage. This bill
strikes a balance.
First, the bill uses clear language to maintain the term spouse
for married couples and to introduce a new term, common law
partner, for unmarried, committed relationships.
Second, under clause 1.1 it is now stated clearly that nothing
in this bill would, in any way, shape or form, alter or affect
marriage as we know it.
Another issue that has been raised is the question of whether
individuals will have to go to court to find out if they qualify
as a common law partner because of the use of the term conjugal.
Quite frankly, this defies common sense.
Common law relationships are not new. The word conjugal has
been used in federal law for some 40 years to describe common law
opposite sex couples. There is absolutely no reason that there
should suddenly be a problem in this area where there has not
been one before. Let us put that to rest once and for all.
Common law partners, both opposite sex and same sex, will apply
for benefits and be held responsible for obligations in the same
way that already occurs for common law opposite sex couples.
The members across the floor raise a concern about those who
might try to take advantage of the system, either by declaring a
relationship that does not exist or by failing to declare one
that does. They raise all kinds of outrageous scenarios, which
is beneath them to do so.
This is not a new situation either in law or in the
administration of federal law. Declaring a relationship that
does not exist or failing to declare one that does would be fraud
and would be dealt with under existing provisions that apply to
married couples and common law opposite sex partners. Let us put
that issue to rest as well.
Members opposite have also repeatedly claimed that there is no
public support for this bill. On the contrary, this is simply
not true.
In a survey conducted in October 1998, 67% of Canadians agreed
that same sex couples should have the same legal rights and
obligations as a man and a woman living together as a common law
partnership or couple.
1310
I, like a number of colleagues, have heard from many Canadians
on both sides of this issue, as I said at the outset. Some are
concerned about preserving marriage, for example, but just as
many are concerned about the bill being fair, equitable, tolerant
and compassionate. Equal treatment for all is what I have heard.
The bill will not result in increased taxes for Canadians or
increased costs for employers because the bill responsibly
ensures that both benefits and obligations will be extended at
the same time. The Department of Finance estimates that the
fiscal cost will be balanced by the fiscal obligations which will
rightly ensue. This is not a cost issue for the government.
Similarly, I should note that over 200 private sector Canadian
employers already extend benefits to same sex partners in their
employ as a business decision.
I think it indicates that a business decision taken in this all
important area makes sense, not only from a competitive point of
view but also from a compassionate and human point of view. We
in the government are doing the same by bringing forward Bill
C-23.
I need not remind members that the Supreme Court of Canada made
it clear last May in the ruling of M. v H. that restricting
government benefits or obligations to common law opposite sex
couples is simply not consistent with the charter. Canadians
respect the charter. Canadians have a great love for the
charter. Why is that? Because the charter defines us as a
people.
I hear the member opposite laughing, and well he should laugh
because it is not we on this side of the House who always want to
denigrate one of the great institutions of Canada, the charter as
we know it.
Not so long ago Mr. Stockwell Day was in Ontario. I forget how
the chant went, but I think it went like this “Stockwell Day, go
away, anti-choice and anti-gay; Stockwell Day, make my day, right
wing bigot, go away”.
Those are not my words; those are the words of Ontarians who see
through the code words used by members opposite, who see through
the bitterness, extremism and underlying hatred of various
groups. Quite frankly, we reject that, as do all good thinking,
caring, compassionate Canadians.
If the hon. member does not laugh at me again I will go back to
what I was saying, which is that the great charter of ours
guarantees equality for all Canadians, regardless of age, race,
ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Those
guarantees exist for all, and they exist in a manner consistent
with the fundamental underlying values of this great country.
It is important that we proceed with Bill C-23 to ensure that
people, no matter where they live in Canada, are given the kind
of fundamental respect that Canadians of all stripes not only
require, need and deserve, but want, because that is after all
who we are. We are a nation of greatness built on the very
foundation of tolerance and compassion, caring and acceptance for
everyone.
Why is that? Because our forefathers and foremothers forged
this land along with native Canadians consistent with the
underlying belief that we treat each other as we would be
treated. Why do we do that? Because it is the Canadian thing to
do.
I urge all members of the House to do the right thing and vote
for Bill C-23.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate,
which has been at times a very heated and often divisive subject
before the House.
The legislation is the modernization of benefits and obligations
act denoted in Hansard as Bill C-23. It was tabled in the
House on February 11 this year.
1315
It is focused on the human dynamics that exist in the country
with respect to the rights and obligations that flow from human
relationships and the recognition thereof in law. The bill has
raised the ire on certain occasions and certainly caused a lot of
members of parliament and a lot of Canadians to be inward
looking. This is omnibus legislation which means it touches a
great number of statutes, 68 in total, and extends benefits and
obligations to same sex couples on the same basis as opposite sex
common law couples.
The subject as I refer to it is sometimes outside the comfort
level of many in this place and many around the country. Yet for
most of us it becomes a question of fairness and equitable
treatment with respect to benefits that accrue and benefits that
would flow as a result of human relationships.
A distinction remains with respect to same sex couples. Many
would view the differences as alive and well irrespective of the
legislation passing through the House. In the eyes of many there
is a clear distinction between same sex couples and opposite sex
couples.
This legislation levels the playing field with respect to fiscal
rights and obligations. As has been referred to by many other
members in this place and many who have given commentary on the
bill, it is a bill that respects the Supreme Court of Canada and
which is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms.
Of course with our charter obligations comes the responsibility
to respect the law. To do otherwise, to deny equal treatment
under the law and before the law to same sex couples or partners
would be contrary to Canadian law as it exists and certainly
contrary to our charter. The ruling made in May 1999 in the M
and H case that was handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada
made it clear that governments and agencies cannot limit benefits
or obligations by discriminating against same sex common law
relationships. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
the Canadian Human Rights Act speak of equal treatment and fiscal
fairness under our law.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada approaches this
bill as we approach many bills that have a moral underpinning, or
legislation that forces members and rightly so to reflect upon
their own conscience and the consultation that takes place within
their constituencies and their ability to be objective and far
sighted with respect to the position that is taken. For those
reasons the right hon. Joe Clark, as it is incumbent upon him as
leader to make decisions from time to time on such bills, has
released members of this caucus to follow their conscience and
the wishes of their constituents and to have a free vote. I
would suggest that we are the only party in the House which is
following that particular tact on this bill.
This legislation is about fairness and financial equity, not
about infringing upon an individual's moral or personal beliefs.
The legislation maintains a clear distinction between married and
unmarried relationships as viewed through the eyes of Canadians.
The term spouse, which refers to married couples only, and the
term common law partner are found in the bill and encompass
people in common law relationships, both same sex and opposite
sex. The definition of marriage, although it was intended not to
be changed, is now included by virtue of amendments that were put
forward at the committee stage and further amendments that will
take place here in the Chamber today with respect to votes.
Although the Minister of Justice stated clearly throughout the
weeks and months leading up to the tabling of the bill that the
definition of marriage was not going to be included, at the last
minute, at the eleventh hour, the parliamentary secretary tabled
what was deemed to be a definition of what marriage is.
1320
That definition is one that has been consistently accepted
throughout the country for many years. It is one the Progressive
Conservative Party of Canada fully embraces and supports.
This is not to say that the inclusion of this definition is
wrong; it is the manner in which it was presented by the
government. It was held back until consistent and persistent
pressure from within the government caucus and around the country
cried out for a further definition. Rather than omit it from the
bill, the government decided to include it. We accept and
support that move.
The legislation speaks to benefits and obligations. Same sex
couples will have the same access as other Canadian couples to
social benefits and programs to which they have contributed.
Criteria still have to be met and there are obligations attached.
The hon. member opposite spoke of the financial implications.
The Minister of Finance, who I understand supports the bill, has
indicated there will be offsetting savings by the implementation
of the bill and that the actual cost will be virtually nil at the
end of the day when one calculates those who will now be entitled
versus those who may be disqualified from benefits by virtue of
the acceptance and passage of this legislation.
Some bills that are currently before the country and which will
be touched and changed include the GST and the HST tax credit
legislation. It was very unpopular throughout the country and
was rejected by Liberals in opposition but as members of the
government, they have quickly embraced it and expanded it. The
child tax benefit legislation will also be touched as will old
age security, the Canada pension plan and the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act.
Those types of bills demonstrate quite clearly that this is
about economic and fiscal fairness as opposed to any moral
judgment or any attempt to tread on what I think most Canadians
feel is very sacred ground, which is the spiritual and religious
definition of couples in marriage and how people interact. This
legislation is not meant to be judgmental in that way. Sadly
much of the debate embarked on in this place has at times
digressed into this type of moral judgment.
The legislation is consistent with the decision of the supreme
court. Bill C-23 will correct certain discriminations and will
help achieve equal treatment under the law as it pertains to
fiscal obligations and benefits. To do otherwise would offend
the principles of equity that are enshrined in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Canadian Human Rights Act.
On a strict legal principle with the emotion removed it is
difficult if not impossible to justify not supporting this type
of legislation. Many have expressed reservations and many
continue to struggle with the issue of homosexuality. This bill
is more about keeping all Canadians on an equal footing with
respect to entitlement of benefits and obligations as they
pertain to fiscal matters.
Several provinces have already moved in this direction. Many
corporations and corporate entities have embraced this same
approach. British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario have enacted very
similar legislation to that which we see encompassed in Bill
C-23. Many private sector businesses are taking the lead in
correcting inequalities in the workplace through offering
benefits to both spouses of same sex and opposite sex
relationships.
Parliament has already passed Bill C-78 which extended survivor
pension benefits to same sex partners of federal public service
employees, as have Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British
Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Yukon, Nunavut and
the Northwest Territories. The direction has clearly been
blazed.
It is fair to mention that Conservatives certainly can be
compassionate, tolerant and open to modern thinking in this
regard. Canadians should not be fooled into thinking that this
is an abandonment of the family or principles of the traditional
view. This is about fiscal and equitable treatment under the law
with respect to how Canadians interact and what obligations and
benefits would flow to them after having established a criteria
and a relationship.
In my final submission, the term conjugal does not denote only
sexual relations.
Supreme court justices have made several commentaries and there
are certainly instances of opposite sex couples who have remained
together for many years and no longer embark on sexual relations.
This is not the only criteria.
1325
With that said, I look forward to further debate on this subject
matter and the passage of this legislation through the House.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I grew up in a secure and loving family where both
my father and mother were present. It was not a perfect marriage
but I knew that they loved me and each other. There was a
commitment to stay together in spite of all the problems of
married life. That made my growing up years very happy and
memorable and it instilled values and morals in me which I have
brought to my own marriage and family of eight children.
I know that not every family had that kind of good beginning but
it seemed to be the norm in the Canadian society of the 1940s and
1950s. However, insidious pressures were being placed on family
life. Post-war parents had seen thousands of shattered
relationships. Some of them had lost spouses in the war and had
to start all over again. Other relationships had been destroyed
by adultery both overseas and at home, brought about by the
separation of six terrible years of war. In the lives of these
people there was a growing bitterness about love and marriage
itself.
In the post-war years Canada enjoyed an economic boom. With that
came an ever increasing higher standard of living which placed
the temptation of getting and spending before us. Both
government and Canadians in general went on a huge spending
spree. The government response to pay for all of it was to raise
taxes bringing us to this day where we are almost the highest
taxed nation in the world.
This in itself was yet another economic pressure on Canadian
family life. As inflation spiralled, many women who wanted to be
stay at home mothers had to become breadwinners with their
husbands simply to keep up. Both men and women were working
longer and spending less time with each other and their families.
The commitment to develop strong relationships in family life
was taking a back seat to other less worthy priorities. Some of my
school chums' families started to disintegrate. Divorce become
more frequent but still was not an epidemic. However, the
pressure on the family was building.
By the mid-1960s we were in the midst of a sexual revolution.
Some segments of our society hailed it as liberty, a freeing up
from traditional values like chastity and fidelity which had
provided, in my view, structure and safety for the Canadian
family.
Many women were tired of the abuse they felt they suffered at
the hands of a male dominated society. More of them were
working, taking their places beside men and they wanted equality.
Some of them wanted even more. They wanted vengeance and
retribution. The feminist movement started a strident campaign to
bring women into the 20th century. They burned their bras,
demanded protection from unwanted pregnancy, spurned chastity and
scorned the pro-life people.
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.
In 1968 then justice minister Pierre Trudeau mouthed his
infamous words “the government has no business in the bedrooms
of the nation”. He and his cohorts passed omnibus justice
legislation which legitimized behaviour which until then for
centuries had been considered outside the realm of normal and
good family and personal relationships. He legitimized
homosexuality between consenting adults. He provided couples who
were being split by disharmony and infidelity with an easier way
out, no fault divorce.
At that point in Canadian history, I believe our government
started its assault on traditional family and marriage. In my
view, no government can make legitimate any behaviour that has
for centuries by tradition, custom, faith and the social contract
been seen as destructive to family life.
1330
This brings me to the year 2000. After 32 years of
disintegrating family life, rising divorce rates, the murder of
millions of babies by abortion, the decline of authority and
discipline in families, school and judicial institutions, to the
latest attack on the family, the attack on the very foundation of
family life in this nation, the institution of marriage itself.
May I suggest that the majority of Canadians, people of faith,
whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, have a
common belief that the institution of marriage, one man and one
woman, was part of the Creator's divine plan for the orderly
conduct of life and the continuation of the human race. Those of
us who believe in this are wondering why our government continues
its assault on the family which started in 1968. Why is it so
determined to allow in legislation the gradual diminishing of
influence of the traditional family and marriage itself?
Bill C-23, unfortunately in my view, is the logical progression
of trends started long ago, where now in the form of same sex
benefits, government continues the blurring of the traditional
family and marriage. It does that by suggesting strongly through
this legislation that common law relationships of heterosexual or
same sex couples are no different than that of marriage as the
union of man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
This sends a destructive message to all our children. This says
that the marriage of man and woman for life is not important. It
does not matter whether couples get married or not and it does
not matter with whom one cohabits. What a terrible message to
send to our children. How will the future of our country be
influenced by this?
In moving in this direction, I suggest that this government has
given in once again to the tyranny of the minority. Minority
pressure groups in our society that demand legislative change to
legitimize their position do not really question the morality of
it. They are afraid to ask the important question: Is it really
the right thing to do? They simply change the law in the name of
equality. Having equal rights does not make those rights correct
or moral. We cannot legislate equality any more than we can
legislate morality. Those are attitudes of the heart and soul
that the government has clearly forgotten about.
Now, the party that told us that government has no business in
the bedrooms of the nation, continues to invade them. Ironic, is
it not? We have a bill that gives benefits and obligations on
the basis of conjugal relationships.
What are the youth of today saying? When I listen to them, I
hear them wanting to return to a better day, to a day when family
life and marriage had more security and more commitment. For
instance, in a study done in 1971 young people between the ages
of 18 to 34 were asked if they agreed that extramarital sex was
okay and 34% of them said yes. In 1995, 18 to 34 year olds were
asked the same question and only 11% said yes. Who are these
1995 young people? They are the children of the baby boomers
whose lives were supposed to be made easier by free love, easy
divorce and the legitimization of homosexuality.
They are the ones who suffered the results of the age of
promiscuity, the lack of commitment, parents who were not there
for them when they needed them and, quite frankly, they want a
better life. They want to be better parents and more committed
to their spouses, with more order and structure in their family
lives and for their children.
Why does our government always have to be so many years behind
the real feelings of the majority of people when it crafts and
passes legislation? This is exactly what is happening with Bill
C-23.
I look at our nation today and weep. I weep for the hurting
children who do not really know their parents. I ache for the
women who suffer post-abortion trauma and have deep regrets for
their actions. My heart breaks for young people who have grown
up in homes where the lack of structure, discipline and love has
led to rebellion and bitterness.
1335
The Reena Virk incident is a tragic result of the things that I
have talked about today. I see a government oblivious to the
whole thing, determined to march to the orders of a tyrannical
minority which will cause us all to reap the results of the
whirlwind in the years to come. I say shame on it for not having
open eyes to see what is going on, open ears to hear the wishes
of the majority of Canadians who are opposed to the bill and open
minds to admit that it is.
If this bill passes without the amendments we have suggested, it
will be a sad day for Canada and I, for one, would never want to
be a part of that kind of country.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Bill C-23 has raised a lot of questions and a lot of
issues. People want to get their views on the record. Through
the course of the debate we have found people with different
backgrounds appearing to take a common position on a bill for
entirely different reasons.
For example, just a few moments ago an hon. colleague from the
Conservative Party reaffirmed for everybody in the House who was
listening that this bill was purely and exclusively about
economic and fiscal inequalities that must be redressed. As many
others have done, he pointed to the fact that legislation in the
House was really behind the current conditions of the day in the
marketplace. As an example, he pointed to the many decisions on
the part of the private sector to equalize benefits
notwithstanding sexual orientation.
That may be true but the bill does aim to ensure that the
economic discrepancies and inequalities that appear to exist in
relationships of economic dependency are immediately redressed. I
underscore that this has been an issue of economic dependency. I
think the state has a right to intervene in any partnership where
economic dependency does have ramifications for the larger social
good.
As was rightly pointed out by individuals in the House,
tolerance, compassion and all those values that they ascribe to
Canadian society and to each and every individual here, do come
into play. However, as another colleague has accurately pointed
out, one does not legislate compassion, equality or justice. One
legislates equality of treatment.
When there is, as this bill has indicated, a circumstance where
economic dependency and a partnership is not recognized, then the
state has the obligation to ensure that both the rights and the
responsibilities of that partnership are upheld. The
presumption, of course, is that these partnerships all have the
social value for a collective good.
Bill C-23 recognizes that there is a discrimination of sorts. I
say of sorts because I am trying to be very careful and cautious
in the language I use. This is, after all, a charged
environment. I am looking at the issue of all economic
dependencies. Cases where these economic dependencies do not
call into question a sexual relationship are excluded from this
bill. For me that is an important and significant vacuum in
this legislation. We should include all those who are not
properly dealt with by legislation.
As members of parliament, once we see an injustice, once we
perceive an inequality and once we engage our energies to ensure
that we address that inequality, we have an obligation to not
restrict that energy to just one component of that inequality.
I do not know if I am making myself clear, but if one recognizes
the value of economic dependencies, then surely one should not
restrict them on the basis of sexuality.
1340
I am sure my children think of me as a prude, or a dinosaur, as
a member on the other side would have said. I am not really. I
am one of those children of the sixties. I recognize that there
are responsibilities that we arrogate to ourselves the moment we
make decisions. I truly believe that as individuals, if we make
a decision we are responsible for it. We cannot ask somebody
else to be responsible for our decisions unless of course those
decisions have a larger impact. If people are willing to show me
what the benefits are of some individual decisions, I am willing
to accept them.
Colleagues on both sides of the House have argued that the bill
should be exclusively fiscal and economic in its approach, and
that what the Government of Canada rightly is doing is catching
up to society and giving to many relationships the legitimacy
that convention has already accorded them and that private
sectors have already ascribed by virtue of some decisions that
have emanated from the courts.
However, there is one other element that people have raised. My
colleague from the Conservative Party a few moments ago said that
some people were still struggling with homosexuality. No, I do
not think anybody is. There are overtones of religious bias.
There is bias in everything.
Despite being one of those people from the free wheeling
sixties, I too had an upbringing. I am proud to say that my
upbringing was religious, although I am not as practising as I
used to be, but it was religious in the sense that it said every
single man and woman, every single creature on this earth is
worthy of the dignity that is accorded all humans.
If people would say to me that I was being a little bit
religious on this issue, I would say that they are darned right.
I hope I am living up to the credo that I espoused when I was a
younger man. What dignity is at stake? What compassion need I
accord to someone that my background has not already obligated me
to offer? What discrimination is so glaring that it needs my
immediate and total attention? I would willingly give it.
People have pointed out the economic and fiscal discrepancies
where two unrelated people, it does not matter what gender they
are, have agreed in their partnership that they would sustain
each other. We as a state or as representatives of the state say
that is a good and healthy relationship and we will give it what
it is due. However, let us do that for every single
relationship. Let us not restrict it by sexuality. If we do, we
then call into question precisely the issues that some of my
colleagues have raised, and that is, by so restricting this
decision and by indicating that we can only deal with this
element of inequality do we then not call into question the
larger issues, the issue of matrimony, the issue of heterosexual
relationships, the issue, as my colleague from the Alliance Party
indicated, of family? From there we can extrapolate all the ills
that we will.
I do not think we are in a position where we need to challenge
ourselves about sustaining something that is rock solid. Like
many members in the House, I am also blessed with a little bit of
skepticism. I thought this was a bill, purely and exclusively,
about redressing fiscal and economic inequalities and economic
dependencies. However, I then heard other members in the House,
as is the end or objective of debate, and advocates outside the
House complain that the Minister of Justice changed the bill by
including an amendment wherein she defined marriage. Their
response was that the bill was not about economic dependency.
They said that the bill was about recognizing this particular
sexual activity on the same par as another.
1345
My tolerance and my willingness to address the issue were
awakened. My constituents were also equally compassionate and
equally committed to establishing a country and a society of
which everyone could be proud. They are now asking which it is.
Is the bill one that recognizes this type of marriage on the same
basis as the other by giving a definition or not giving a
definition or by giving the same benefits that accrue to this
one? What are the social benefits of any type of union?
If it is true that the state has no business in the bedroom of
the nation, what then should be the criteria for economic
dependency? What should be the test of unions that are for the
common weal and not for individual benefit?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I have a number of concerns about the bill. My
colleagues have very ably raised a number of them over the course
of their speeches. I will focus on just a few ideas.
My main concern with the bill is that it threatens the very
institution of marriage. People can dismiss that and brush it
off, but I think down the road we will rue the day that this
legislation was brought forward. It takes us further down a
slippery slope that leads to the devaluing of the important
institution of marriage.
In 1996 the Liberals passed Bill C-33, the bill that added
sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The stated
goal of that bill was to protect homosexuals from discrimination
in the workplace and in housing.
At that time a number of Liberals, and we will cite some of them
today, assured the Canadian public that the amendment to the act
would not lead to the extension of benefits to partners of
homosexuals. We were told then that it was only stopping
discrimination, that it was only a workplace and housing issue.
In the House on May 7, 1996, the Liberal member for
Wentworth—Burlington defended Bill C-33 and the justice minister
of the day with these words:
—many Canadians feared that Bill C-33 would lead to court
interpretation such that gay couples could claim marriage and
family benefits as a matter of right, that the legal privileges
the state confers on conjugal couples of the opposite sex would
be equally guaranteed by right to couples of the same sex. The
justice minister has explicitly said this is not the intention of
Bill C-33. He said it is workplace legislation and nothing more.
He has assured us it has nothing to do with the definition of
family, of same sex benefits or of same sex couples.
Those words were from the Liberal member for
Wentworth—Burlington. They ring pretty hollow today. To add to
that, on May 8, 1996, the justice minister of the day, the member
for Etobicoke Centre who is now the health minister, confirmed
this deception when he said:
The Liberal justice minister at that time in his own words
explicitly claimed that even if sexual orientation were added to
the Canadian Human Rights Act the courts would not use that to
extend benefits to gay partnerships.
We can fast forward to today where we find that all those
promises were empty. They all ring very hollow, very deceptive
in fact, as subsequent events have shown. That slippery slope
has operated quite well.
There has been a series of court decisions rendered in which
various kinds of benefits previously restricted to heterosexual
couples have now been extended to gay partners. The most recent
decisions have included the Rosenberg decision in June 1998 in
which the Ontario Court of Appeal changed the Income Tax Act to
extend pension benefits to gay partners. In May 1999 the supreme
court declared in its M. v H. ruling that gay partners were subject
to the alimony provisions of the Ontario family law act.
What happened in these court cases is exactly what the Liberals
said would not happen. They are obviously not very good at
prediction and beyond that they knew exactly where this would
lead.
We see a pattern in which the initiatives of the Liberal party
on same sex matters turn into merely a Trojan horse. I make some
exceptions for folk on that side of the House who understand and
see the problems with the legislation.
At first they say the legislation they are passing in 1996 will
not lead to legal challenges designed to extend benefits to gay
couples. Then when the legal challenges come forward and are
successful they turn around and say they had better change the
laws to reflect the recent court decisions. That is what they
are doing with the introduction of Bill C-23.
1350
I heard a member say just recently that the Liberal cabinet is
trying to catch up with the recent court decisions. The truth is
that it is merely finishing what it set in motion. It is all
very disingenuous. That is why we need to wake up and realize
that the bill is a definite plan and it takes us further down
that slippery slope. It sets the stage for a direct attack on
the heterosexual definition of marriage at a date coming very
soon. Stay tuned. We will see it before long in our supreme
court.
If the legislation is passed it will lead in a very significant
way, looking back historically, to a very major devaluation of
marriage. Some ask why this would be bad since we are in a
modern era and maybe there are other ways to deal with it. I
would say that marriage, which the bill threatens, is a unique
institution that has historically served us very well. It
deserves to be guarded, not only protected but affirmed.
The institution of marriage has brought great benefits to
society. It is in the vast majority of marriages that children
are brought into the world, providing our country with its future
citizens, workers, leaders, mothers and fathers. Marriage, as we
know and as is shown time and again in academic study after
academic study, provides the most stable, enduring context. Our
Statistics Canada studies demonstrate this point. Marriage
provides the most enduring context for the development of
individuals during the formative years of childhood.
It has been proven that families in which the parents are
married are statistically the most stable families. In this way
marital relationships contribute to the dignity, stability, peace
and prosperity of the family and of society.
Why does marriage bring these benefits? When a man and a woman
enter into a marriage relationship it is almost always with the
express purpose of making a lifelong commitment that will form
the basis of family life and the environment in which children
will be reared.
Marriages do break down, regrettably, sadly and tragically, but
the fact that marriage relationships are much more stable than
common law relationships makes one point very clear. Very few
people enter into a marriage relationship flippantly. Most have
carefully thought about the commitment they are making and the
sincere and solemn vows to which they are committing. They
realize they are participating in something much larger than
themselves, something that most Canadians from various religious
backgrounds believe is designed by God.
I simply point out that people are serious when they get
married. This seriousness and depth of commitment to marriage
are what benefit children who are born and raised in families.
This is of great benefit to society.
Because of the way in which the institution of marriage benefits
society we need to guard it, protect it and promote it. The
institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman
must be preserved, protected and promoted in both the private and
the public realms. It would be foolish to undermine the
uniqueness of the marriage relationship. Any society that does
so risks losing the benefits that have come to that society from
marriage and from the high regard in which it has always been
held.
Some people are not thinking about the health of the larger
society when they are willing to sacrifice the societal benefits
which come from marriage in order to engage in some major
societal experimentation. We are in a laboratory, it appears,
and some major social experimenting is going on that will create
some real harm and damage down the road. Such people regard
marriage as little more than a form of self-expression. It is
much more than that. It is the glue that holds society together
and lays the groundwork for the society of tomorrow.
The institution of marriage is not something to be toyed with.
Were we to abandon the uniqueness of marriage, I am convinced we
would pay a heavy price for that social experimentation. We
would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
To tinker with the institution of marriage sends the wrong
message to our young people. Surveys have shown that young
people are actually more optimistic about relationships and
starting a family some day than many of their parents. That
optimism is good and needs to be encouraged.
Were the institution of marriage to be changed, we would be
sending the wrong message to common law couples who have children
and who are contemplating making a lifelong commitment to each
other in marriage. Obviously many couples who are married today
were formerly living together in common law relationships.
At some point they decided to commit themselves to each other in
a greater way, in marriage. This is something to be welcomed and
encouraged. The children in such relationships benefit and
society in turn benefits.
1355
Therefore marriage in Canada as currently defined as the union
of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others accords
with the Reform Party, the Canadian Alliance policy that marriage
is the union between a man and a woman as recognized by the
state.
Though the bill before us can be criticized from various angles,
I believe that one of the most serious criticisms is the way in
which it takes us further down that slippery slope toward the
devaluation of marriage.
This is typical of the way the Liberal cabinet and some
candidates handle social policy matters. Liberals appear to be
anti-family with respect to the national day care program. The
Canadian Alliance offers dollars and choice for parents. The
Liberal cabinet has tax discrimination against one income
families. We offer a 17% solution of fairness and equity, a
$10,000 per person exemption and $20,000 per family.
The Liberal cabinet is unwilling to uphold laws against child
pornography. We would use the notwithstanding clause to protect
kids. The Liberals have unfair child access laws after divorce.
We propose shared parenting family law to fix that. I could go
on from there.
In closing, we have a cabinet with a track record of undermining
the family by way of legislative initiatives. I do not believe
that the majority will forget that attack on the family. As
members of the Canadian Alliance Party, as I wrap up, we will
fight for families. We expect that Canadians will join us in
that significant battle as well.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned about the
arguments I have been hearing from time to time from our friends
across the aisle. Government members seem to be always
presenting arguments that concentrate on their attempts to refute
the arguments presented by my colleagues.
In other words what we have are negative arguments in opposition
to the opposition. What I am waiting to hear are arguments
explaining the civil and social purposes of the bill. What are
its objectives? How can it possibly benefit society?
It is not good enough for the government to argue that the bill
will do no harm. Although that premise in itself is questionable
I do see some potential for harm there, but there must be, if
this is to be reasonable legislation, a premise that it will
somehow benefit the country. What is the advantage of devaluing
the unique position of marriage with respect to social benefits?
What is the government trying to prove?
Our society has lived for hundreds of generations without this
type of recognition for homosexual relationships. These
relationships have been essentially prescribed—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
it is almost 2 o'clock. I wanted to make sure that I left you
with a good chunk of time. You still have a bit over eight
minutes in your speech. You will have the floor when we come
back to Government Orders.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, this week communities across Canada are celebrating
National Volunteer Week.
What does it mean to volunteer? The dictionary describes it as
spontaneously taking on a task, but rather than define the term
being a volunteer really defines the person.
Canada has repeatedly been selected by the United Nations as the
number one place in the world to live. This is in large part due
to the friendly, voluntary spirit of Canadians.
1400
We are beginning a new millennium. Everyone is in a hurry to
get things done, with less free time to give.
Congratulations to the many individual volunteers and social
groups who have made their communities a better place to live.
On this, the first volunteer week of the 21st century, let us all
make an extra effort to donate some of our precious free time
this year and let us teach our children about the spirit of
volunteerism, Canada's greatest natural resource.
* * *
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Canadian Cancer Society's campaign month. An estimated
129,000 cases of cancer occur each and every year in Canada.
Each year 63,000 people die from the disease. Each week 2,000
people are diagnosed with cancer, 1,200 of whom die in the course
of the disease.
This hits very close to my home and family because next month
marks the fifth anniversary of my father's death. His passing
was a terribly difficult time for my family, and we miss him
terribly.
The Canadian Cancer Society campaigns throughout the month of
April so that it can fund programs such as patient services,
public education, and CCS's cancer information service. The
money we donate goes to upkeep these valuable services and to
promote groundbreaking research to improve the quality of life of
people experiencing cancer, and to move toward the complete
eradication of this devastating disease.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and my colleagues on both sides of
the House to come together and to donate time and money to help
increase awareness in this month.
* * *
CANADIAN MILITIA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Armed Forces have been through difficult times. They have done
fine work with restricted resources. Now that they have
additional funds I hope they will not forget the army reserve,
the militia.
A vibrant militia is a vital part of modern armed forces. The
militia is a key part of the Armed Forces for training and
recruitment, for national and international emergencies, and for
many types of peacekeeping missions. The reserve provides a
presence for the Armed Forces in communities across the nation.
I urge DND to foster and expand militia units in communities
such as Peterborough and all across Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week,
National Volunteer Week 2000, offers us an opportunity to
publicly thank the millions of Canadians who contribute their
time and talents to serve their fellow citizens.
This year's theme, “Volunteering: a time-honoured tradition” is
well-chosen, for Canada has a long history of volunteerism. Over
the years, volunteers have focused incredible energy for the
health of their communities.
All aspects of Canadian society have been profoundly affected by
the cumulative efforts of ordinary citizens all over this
country, which have had a considerable impact on its growth and
development.
Volunteers have made a huge contribution to shaping this country
in the past, and will continue to play a lead role in shaping
our future. Their devotion and commitment truly pay a tribute
to Canadians' values and identity.
I am sure all members of this House will join me in thanking the
millions of volunteers active in all regions of the country.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I intend to introduce a bill this week concerning the posting of
gas prices by retailers, which would not include the federal and
provincial taxes.
* * *
[English]
VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today the stark, majestic, white spires waft by gentle
breeze on tranquil Vimy Ridge belie the terror of old. While the
sky rained shells and brave men died, 100,000 Canadians moved
forth in a hell of inhumanity, testing their mettle and mortality
of soul. They were advancing on unconquerable Vimy. On this
same ridge, tens of thousands had died before in vain British and
French assaults.
The goal was now Canada's turn. Canada's finest young men won
the contest that day, a victory for all the world to see. The
greatest victory of World War I, Vimy Ridge, would enter Canadian
history on April 12th, 1917.
Many would say that Canada took birth that day, born into the
world of nations with respect, born by the blood of our young and
born through their determination and skill. Their spirit lives
on to this day.
* * *
SUMMERHILL STREET SCHOOL
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to offer congratulations to four very special students in
my riding.
Crystal Cardwell, Jessica Furzer, Anne Sophie Groulx and Kristina
Pigeon are grade four students at Summerhill Street School in
Oromocto. These girls are the best in the world.
1405
These students have done all New Brunswickers proud by winning
the International Lunch Box Derby in New York City. The derby
involves building cars out of fruit and vegetables and launching
them down a ramp to see which one travels the greatest distance.
The Oromocto team won and even set a new world record of 20
metres in the process, beating teams from the United States and
Great Britain.
For their ingenuity, teamwork and creativity, as well as their
international crown, I proudly salute Crystal, Jessica,
Anne Sophie and Kristina on a job well done.
* * *
[Translation]
VOLUNTEERS
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the context
of volunteer week in Quebec, I would like to pay tribute to
three million men and women in Quebec, who of their own volition
agree to give of their best to provide a touch of humanity in
the daily lives of tens of thousands of individuals.
Is there any more true gift that we can offer than our time?
These people will point out that giving means receiving, because
meeting someone else face to face brings us face to face with
ourselves. This is a way to exercise one's citizenship to the
fullest.
Words cannot express the gratitude and respect we feel for these
men and women, who say that their happiness is conditional on
the happiness of others.
Thanks to each of you, who, through your generosity, provide
warm support to society. Thanks to you from the bottom of our
hearts.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WOMEN'S HOCKEY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the gold medal was on the line. The American team was leading
2-0 after two periods. The tension was high in the Hershey
Centre in Mississauga last night as Team Canada took the ice for
the third period. They were down but not out.
In the Women's World Hockey Championships, Team Canada made it
2-1 and then 2-all and then, in dramatic fashion in overtime,
they lifted the roof and won their sixth consecutive world
championship.
Congratulations to the entire team under coach Melody Davidson,
to Fran Rider, executive director of the Ontario Women's Hockey
Association, who hosted the tournament, and to Mayor Hazel
McCallion, honorary chair of women's hockey in Canada and an
inspiration to the players.
This was Canada's 30th consecutive win in the world
championships. True Canadian grit, determination and character
came out in these proud Canadian athletes; a true tribute to
Canadian hockey and a great victory for Canadian women's hockey.
* * *
WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in Glasgow, Scotland on the weekend
Canada demonstrated once again that it is a dominant force in
the sport of curling.
On Saturday, skip Kelley Law and her team from the Richmond
Winter Club swept their way to victory against Switzerland for
the women's world curling championship. But Canada's winning
ways did not end there.
On Sunday curling fans around the world watched as skip Greg
McAulay and his team from New Westminster, B.C. defeated Sweden
by a score of 9-4 to claim the men's world curling championship
as well.
As a proud representative of the people of British Columbia, I
would be remiss if I did not also mention that the men's world
junior curling championship was won two weeks ago by Kelowna's
Brad Kuhn.
My congratulations go out to all of these fine men and women who
continue to demonstrate that B.C. does indeed stand not only for
best Canadians, but best curlers.
* * *
NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to take this opportunity to remind all hon. members that
today marks the first day of National Wildlife Week. This
week-long celebration of our wildlife heritage was established by
an act of parliament in 1947.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation sponsors National Wildlife Week
in co-operation with the Canadian Wildlife Service and federal,
provincial, territorial and municipal wildlife agencies, as well
as non-profit organizations.
This year's theme is “Migration: An Incredible Journey”. It
reminds us that migratory species need adequate food, water,
shelter and space to survive and complete their trips between
breeding and wintering grounds.
I hope that all Canadians will take some time during this week
to reflect on the importance of wildlife conservation in this
country.
* * *
NATIONAL POETRY MONTH
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in
honour of national poetry month I would like to read an excerpt
from “A Thousand Crosses in Oppenheimer Park” by Bud Osborn.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
ARMED FORCES DAY
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the 2000
calendar of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is quite
revealing. It notes all sorts of celebrations and all the
national days, including of course, Canada day, July 1. There
is one single exception, Quebecers' national day. We discover,
instead, hang on to your hats, that June 24 is armed forces day.
St. Jean Baptiste day is mentioned, but the hon. member
certainly knows that this holiday is shared by all French
Canadians, whereas Quebecers' national day is the day of all
citizens of Quebec whatever their origin. The member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has made June 24 an ethnic holiday,
which is not the case in Quebec.
The fact that the member neglected to note that June 24 is
Quebec's national day, the national day of all Quebecers,
surprises no one in Quebec, because at the heart of Liberal
Party action is the denial of the people of Quebec.
Once again Quebecers—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
* * *
[English]
WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two rinks from British Columbia have taken gold in both the men's
and women's World Curling Championships in Glasgow, Scotland.
The men's squad from New Westminster's Royal City Curling Club,
made up of Jody Sveistrup, Bryan Miki, Brent Pierce and skip Greg
McAulay, needed just nine ends to defeat Team Sweden 9-4. The
women's squad from the Richmond Winter Club, made up of Julie
Skinner, Georgina Wheatcroft, Diane Nelson and skip Kelley Law,
won gold in a nail-biter against the Swiss team, 7-6.
[Translation]
And that is not all. Thanks to an overtime goal by Nancy
Drolet, Canada won the world women's hockey championship beating
out the American team.
Congratulations to three remarkable teams.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, when the
federal government announced in 1995 that it would be withdrawing
from the ownership and operation of regional and local ports, we
were all quite leery of the ramifications such a decision would
have on local stakeholders.
The transfer of these wharves to private for profit interests
has left our fishing industry at the mercy of these companies,
which are in a position to substantially increase berthing fees,
knowing full well that many fishermen have few options but to tie
their vessels at their locations.
In Atlantic Canada some berthing fees have more than doubled
since private companies took over. For instance, last year a
boat owner at the Digby wharf paid $1,056 in berthing fees. This
year the owner is being charged $2,336 for the same service.
The minister might suggest that they move to another wharf;
however, let me remind him that a number of wharves in Atlantic
Canada were seriously damaged in a January 21 storm and his
government has thus far failed to provide any meaningful
emergency assistance to help repair them.
The new national marine policy was supposed to ensure
affordable, effective and safe marine transportation services. I
think the fishing industry would—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore.
* * *
SACKVILLE RIVER'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week is a famous week in
Canada as we celebrate two great weeks: National Volunteerism
Week and Canadian Environmental week.
One of the groups I would like to honour is the Sackville
River's Association of Nova Scotia. These great volunteers lost
a member the other day to illness; however, the member and the
association combined volunteerism with environmentalism to
protect Atlantic salmon in the Sackville River and throughout
Nova Scotia.
These men and women, along with their children, do yeomen's work
every weekend and every week night, whenever they can, trying to
clean up the river to preserve and protect fish for future
generations, as well as promoting environmental activism within
the fishing communities throughout Nova Scotia and Atlantic
Canada.
I congratulate those involved with the Sackville River's
Association, as well as all volunteers across this country.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
OPTION CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister has an
interesting sense of accountability. The heritage department fast
tracked nearly $5 million worth of grants to Option Canada even
though the organization had existed only a few weeks. It had no
track in handling public funds. When heritage auditors found out
that the money went missing the government responded by
acknowledging that the money went missing and then closed the
case. End of story.
How many millions need to be lost before the heritage minister
displays even the slightest hint of respect for taxpayers'
dollars?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in fact the department, following questions that
were raised two years ago on this issue, delivered over 100 pages
of documents which were relevant to the actual audit and the
follow-up.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is nice to get the documents.
Maybe it would have been good if taxpayers had got the cash back.
The grant was about boosting the no side of the referendum, as
some people say, but that is not what Option Canada was about.
The operations manager said, “Not a penny from the grant was
spent on the no side's campaign during the referendum”. Of
course that begs the question, what did the money go for? Who
knows what the grant was for? Nobody knows where that money
went.
For 100 pages of documents, the minister could talk about it but
I would like to know why did she not track down the cash?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, over a period of six months there were dozens of
questions on this issue in the House by the members of the Bloc.
I am happy that the Reform Party has finally discovered the
questions that were asked.
Two years ago there was a very fulsome reply given not only in
the House of Commons but also in over 100 pages of documents that
were delivered two years ago that I guess the Reform
Party/Canadian Alliance discovered this week.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the 100 pages of documents have not
cleared up the crisis. The money is still missing and the
minister knows it.
Canadians deserve an answer and to know where in the world the
money is. Option Canada officials are still refusing to open
their books and the minister is refusing to demand an answer from
them on accountability. They refuse to answer how the money was
spent.
It is $5 million worth of taxpayers' money that has vanished
without a trace. Regardless of 100 pages of documents, the
answer has still not come forward. Is it that the minister does
not care about getting to the bottom of this or does she not know
where the money went and she does not want Canadians to find out
where it went?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the documents included exactly where the
expenditures went.
* * *
MILLENNIUM BUREAU OF CANADA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, HRDC, EDC, regional development, the
millennium bureau and now Option Canada spent billions of
taxpayers' dollars and the Liberals see them all as one big
vote-buying slush fund. But it is not just that the Liberals are
spending billions of taxpayers' dollars to buy votes, they ignore
their own rules in doing so.
With the millennium bureau less than 1% of the grants have been
audited. Why does parliament pass laws and regulations to
monitor the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and yet the Liberal
government just ignores them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some 1,100 projects have been approved for funding but
only some 400 projects have been the subject of signed
contribution agreements.
Until there are signed contribution agreements, no money is paid
out. Even where there are signed agreements, the money is paid
out in instalments pursuant to statements of worth according to
the terms of the agreements.
I do not know any system where audits are carried out on
projects before they even begin and before they are completed. I
do not know how we can monitor projects when they are just
getting under way.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, no matter how much the
government tries to spin the mismanagement of public dollars,
there is one fact that it cannot avoid. Every dollar that the
government spends on one of its vote-buying slush fund projects
is a dollar that cannot be spent on health care or education.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to Canadians why the
Liberal government feels it is more important to put money into
these vote-buying slush funds than into health care and education
for Canadian citizens?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have put some $14 billion into health care, in the
last two budgets. That is far in excess of the amount put into
the Canadian millennium partnership fund.
Furthermore, my hon. friend in her comments is insulting groups
like the Trans Canada Trail Foundation which is being supported
by Canadians from coast to coast to coast, two-thirds of the
funding for which comes from the private sector and other
community organizations. If she wants to insult Canadians as
being subject to vote buying, I do not think the rest of
Canadians would agree with her. She should get up and express an
apology—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
matter of the Department of Human Resources Development, day
after day we try to obtain relevant and precise information from
the government on its management of public funds, and we get
nowhere, which is not the way it should be.
How can the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the
Access to Information Act, justify the government's attempt to
shirk its obligations and to systematically refuse to release
information it has, a situation that contravenes its own
legislation?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Justice I
provide advice to all departments in relation to access to
information. We will continue to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a good thing that they are being advised to follow the
recommendations, because of the 57 requests we have made, some
40 are past due, and complaints are currently being prepared.
For example, with respect to the Department of Human Resources
Development, the government has flooded us with 10,000 pages of
documentation, but is denying us the relevant few pages in the
Placeteco matter, which would explain how $1.2 million
disappeared.
When will the minister understand that what is important is not
the number of pages, but the relevance of the documents that
must be released? This is her responsibility as the Minister
of Justice.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past
10 weeks alone the department of human resources has received 541
requests under the Access to Information Act. In the previous
full 12 months we only received 531 requests, so they are coming
in at a rate four times the norm and we are doing our best to get
the information out as quickly as we can.
In addition we have released 10,000 pages that the member has
already alluded to, 3,000 pages of material to the standing
committee. Altogether 75,000 pages of information have been
released.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, government
transparency is at stake here.
We know that Option Canada is directly connected to the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs. This organization has managed to
make $4.8 million disappear and is still refusing to act on our
access to information requests. In one case we have been
waiting for 195 days and in the other 225.
How can the minister of clarity, who is responsible for this
group, justify such unacceptable behaviour? Is it on grounds of
national security, or for the security of friends of the Liberal
party?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): What is
interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that Option Canada is subject to
the Access to Information Act, unlike Option Québec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): I am going to have to ask
the minister what Option Québec is, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: It is a book by René Lévesque.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: What kind of an answer is that anyway?
The government has systematically refused to respond to requests
by the opposition, even the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, he who passes himself off as the minister of clarity,
whether in connection with Option Canada or his own department,
when we ask him to provide us with the opinions he has received
in response to the supreme court judgment. We are told that
confirmation cannot be given as to whether there is indeed such
a thing or not, but if there were such a thing, we would not be
given it.
How can the minister responsible for the Privy Council behave in
such a way?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said, what is bizarre is that Option Canada
is subject to the Access to Information Act, while Option Québec
was not, since it was connected to the office of the Premier of
Quebec.
* * *
1425
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
First the health minister ignored Alberta's privatization plans.
Then he told parliament that Bill 11 should be withdrawn. Next,
prompted by the Prime Minister, he said that Bill 11 should be
passed. Now he has written to Alberta urging that Bill 11 be
changed.
Notwithstanding the health minister's acrobatics, and in view of
his newfound concern for queue jumping, can the minister tell the
House how many investigations are under way in Alberta and how
many patients are affected?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was Ralph Klein himself who invited a comparison between Bill
11 and legislation in other provinces governing private for
profit facilities.
A comparison demonstrated that in Ontario and Saskatchewan for
example, those statutes prohibited the sale of so-called enhanced
services in private for profit facilities. In response to the
premier's invitation we wrote and pointed that out. We quoted
the sections and suggested that he amend his statute, among other
things, to do what other provinces have done and forbid such
practices.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would
have thought he would not need Premier Klein to invite
comparisons. Those things could have been seen in the newspaper
or on television for that matter.
Canadians no longer trust the minister to protect the Canada
Health Act. They want answers and we want answers. I will ask
the minister again, how many investigations are under way in
Alberta today and how many Albertan patients are affected?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I can tell the hon. member that Canadians know whom to trust when
it comes to health care in this country and it certainly is not
the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party happens to
believe that pouring more money into the system is going to solve
all the problems.
We understand that governments have to work together to
introduce the kinds of changes and improvements that are needed
to make medicare sustainable in the future. With our partners in
the provinces, that is exactly what we intend to do.
* * *
LOBBYISTS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, Hugh Riopelle, a lobbyist and golfing pal of the
Prime Minister, has admitted publicly that he lobbied various
cabinet ministers on behalf of Pierre Bourque, Sr., a man who
owes him money, to help broker a deal for the Louis St. Laurent
building in Hull. As of today, Mr. Riopelle has still not
registered Bourque as a client under the Lobbyists Registration
Act as required by law.
Will the ethics counsellor or the minister call in the RCMP to
investigate this cosy deal, or should Canadians accept the fact
that friends of the Prime Minister continue to receive special
treatment?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I explained on Friday, the ethics counsellor does
look into the issue of whether somebody has been properly
registered. Where there is justification, he will then give the
appropriate information to the authorities to investigate
further.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern developing here with regard to
friends of the Prime Minister. René Fugère acts as a lobbyist
and does not register himself. Mr. Riopelle acts as a lobbyist
and does not register his clients. Ordinary Canadians who are
not friends of the Prime Minister are compelled to register under
the Lobbyists Registration Act or face fines or possibly jail.
Why the double standard? Why are friends of the Prime Minister
somehow considered to be above the law?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a ridiculous question. The fact is that if
there is an obligation to register, then of course he will have
to do so. It is as simple as that. Apparently the member is in
possession of information that he has not disclosed to me or
perhaps he has disclosed it to the ethics counsellor which makes
it an open and shut case for him. If he has such information, he
should disclose it. In the meantime, justice will take its
appropriate course.
* * *
BIOTEC CANADA
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister that looks after
lobbyists.
It was reported today that Industry Canada is paying dues to
Biotec Canada. This a lobby group that works to influence
government policy on biotechnology. The government can always
find new ways to spend taxpayers' money. Now we find that
Industry Canada is paying a group to lobby guess who, Industry
Canada.
Why is the minister allowing this to happen and when did he
become a registered lobbyist?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not pay Biotec Canada to lobby anybody.
1430
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is simply not the case. It pays member dues to
that organization.
We are not talking about a normal relationship between a lobby
group and a government department. We are talking about Industry
Canada belonging to this lobby group and paying its membership
dues, $6,500 the year before last and $1,000 last year.
Why is the government allowing this to continue?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a national technology association. There are
many such associations. Industry Canada obtains useful
information by being a member of the association. It derives
information that is used for a variety of practical purposes.
There is nothing unusual or untoward about that. The member
should do his research and he would understand it.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs seems surprised to be asked about
Option Canada. But Option Canada came under Operation Unity,
which reported to PCO, and therefore to him.
I therefore ask him the following question: if the $4.8 million
did not go to the no committee, what became of it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is the same one I gave two years ago.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
try to enlighten the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
How could they sit by, no questions asked, while $4.8 million
disappeared into the mist surrounding such well-known Liberals as
Rémi Bujold and Claude Dauphin?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is exactly the same as it was two years ago.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what is 78? That is the number of
our access requests to HRDC that are past due. The law requires
HRDC to provide information within 30 days of a request. The
human resources department has breached the Access to Information
Act 78 times with our requests alone.
Does the minister think she is above the law, or is there
something she wants to hide?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
already alluded today to the 75,000 pages of information that has
been released to a number of requests that have never been asked
for before. We are doing our best to keep up.
I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the House
that even the media is getting sick of the fact that the business
of the House is taking a back seat to theatre. It says here that
social and foreign policy issues await debate while the Alliance
chases scandal, while the Alliance engages in more theatre.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we work for the people of Canada not
for the media. I suggest the minister might want to do that too.
Many of our requests are simple requests for internal audits,
documents that could be pulled out of a file and sent to us in
minutes.
HRDC audits made public so far have shown a department in
shocking disarray. We can see why the minister would like to
hide further damaging information from the public but the law
requires her to release these audits. Why is she refusing to
comply?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
refusal to comply.
If the party opposite actually does work for the people of
Canada instead of the media, why is it the only time it stuck to
the same subject for more than two days in a row is the day it
first landed itself on the front page?
* * *
1435
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
Human Resources Development Canada affair, a grant of $1.2
million disappeared into the pockets of friends of the Liberal
party.
Here, in the case of interest to us here, $4.8 million have
disappeared, and the President of Treasury Board is trying to
sweep the whole thing under the rug.
How can the clarity minister refuse to be accountable and to
tell us, as President of the Privy Council and thus responsible
for Operation Unity and Option Canada, who profited from this
money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. member that the
House was provided with over 100 pages of information two years
ago, including the 1997 audit.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor says that the minister did not provide sufficient
information the last time, two years ago. She is telling us a
lot of nonsense.
The minister of clarity, the President of Privy Council, is
saying nothing, although primary responsibility for Option
Canada and for Operation Unity is his.
There is only one thing we want to know. Where is the
taxpayers' money? Who has pocketed the $4.8 million?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member takes time to read the
hundred-plus pages that were provided to the House, he will see
that everything has been checked out.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the human resources minister is responsible for 78
breaches of the Access to Information Act. In case members over
there were not paying attention, the fact that the word “act”
is tagged on there means that it is a law. The minister,
therefore, has an obligation to abide by it. I guess obligations
do not mean much to a minister who broke the trust of taxpayers
by bungling a billion of their tax dollars.
What is so damning about those documents that makes the minister
so afraid of releasing them?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were
afraid of releasing documents we would not have released 75,000
pages worth. That is nonsense.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is really quite simple. Under Canadian law the
minister is required to release that information within 30 days.
A lot of these are just simply audits. Just put them on a copier
and release them to us.
In that, the minister has failed 78 times with our party alone.
What is the minister trying to hide?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really
glad to have the admission from the Alliance Party members that
in the last few weeks they have put in 78 access to information
requests. Perhaps they are the ones clogging up the system so
that average Canadians who do want information cannot get it
because of the backup in the system.
* * *
[Translation]
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister of Canada has just stated in his visit to
Palestine that the Palestinians were doing well to hold on to
the option of a unilateral declaration of independence in order
to put pressure on Israel in the current round of negotiations.
Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain the
bases for the Prime Minister's new position? What are we to
understand from his remarks?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister clearly stated that there must be
negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in order
to determine the future of the occupied territories.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Ontario government is apparently dragging its feet in
renewing the Canada-Ontario Great Lakes agreement which expired
in March, thus putting in danger the health of millions of
Canadians.
Can the Minister of the Environment indicate to the House
whether steps are being taken to bring the Ontario government to
its senses and discharge its responsibility?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Ontario government minister
responsible asking for a renewal of the agreement before it
expired. At that time we invited Ontario to enter into a new
Canada-Ontario agreement on the Great Lakes.
It is my hope that the premier of Ontario will allow his
minister and his government to step up to the plate and join with
us in continuing with the protection of the Great Lakes. Until
that happens we will continue to co-operate wherever we can
with—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
1440
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on Friday the government said it could not release
documents to the RCMP about the Montreal animation company CINAR
because of confidentiality laws. However, according to a
spokesman for the revenue minister, the Customs and Revenue
Agency has the discretionary power to waive this restriction.
I have a very simple question for the revenue minister. Will he
allow the RCMP to obtain access to the CINAR documents?
[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 would first simply say that I
cannot comment on a specific case, namely the case just
mentioned or on any other case.
Second, there is a basic principle, which is a cornerstone of
the legislation on taxation, and that is confidentiality.
Third, I am told at the agency that we have co-operated in the
past, that we are currently co-operating and that we will
continue to co-operate with the RCMP for all sorts of
investigations.
Fourth, the matter of confidentiality is not a discretionary
one, it is fundamental.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the revenue minister's spokesman, Michel Cléroux,
says that there are exceptions in a few cases that allow them to
communicate or release information. This contradicts what the
minister has just said. He said that he was co-operating with
the RCMP, but then he said that there are confidentiality
restrictions.
What is it? Why will he not co-operate with the RCMP and allow
it to have access to these files so we can get to the bottom of
this?
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 cannot believe the
member does not understand what I just said. I said that one of
the cornerstones of the Income Tax Act is confidentiality. I
have to respect that. It is not a question of discretionary
power.
I have been told by the department that we have collaborated
with the RCMP in the past. We are doing it and we will keep
doing it. It is not a question of discretion. It is a question
of confidentiality and, as the minister, I will protect that
cornerstone of our legislation.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the government has been promising for years to
reduce our polluting emission of greenhouse gases but all we have
seen so far is foot dragging and delay.
Last week industrial nations met in Japan to get on with setting
a specific date for ratifying the 1997 Kyoto protocol but Canada
and the United States torpedoed the talks.
When will the government finally ratify the Kyoto accord? By
what percentage will the environment minister commit to reducing
our emission of harmful greenhouse gases?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member has just said, the
meeting in Japan over the last few days was very successful. It
is true that there are difficulties with respect to ratification
related to American constitutional differences between the senate
and the administration, of which the member should be aware.
However, we fully intend to put in place our plans to implement
the Kyoto agreement. We will be working with the provinces in
order to get that in place as soon as possible.
The important thing is not ratification. The important thing is
making sure we have plans in place to reduce greenhouse gases.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Canada needs consistency on issues such as the Kyoto protocol, on
persistent organic pollutants, on biodiversity and on endangered
species.
In 1994 the Hon. John Fraser was appointed as Canada's
ambassador for the environment and to follow up on all the
promises that were made by the United Nations at the Rio summit
in 1992.
The Prime Minister has left this crucial post empty since 1998.
When will the government and the Prime Minister announce the
replacement for Canada's ambassador for the environment?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there is action on
a wide front on many environmental issues. It is certainly
correct, as he pointed out, that the Hon. John Fraser, the former
speaker of the House, did switch from being the ambassador for
the environment to taking on responsibilities for the Pacific
Salmon Commission. If necessary, and as appropriate, we will
appoint a successor.
At the present time, the work that John Fraser carried out is
being carried out by Canadian ambassadors in every country of the
world.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister's friends are looking shadier and shadier.
All of them seem to be under investigation at some point. There
is René Fugère lobbying without proper registration, and Mr.
Riopelle lobbying without registering his clients.
My question is for the minister responsible for the ethics
commissioner. What measures does he intend to take to ensure
that the government heads off events or investigations, instead
of reacting to them?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
law is clear. There is nothing to wonder about.
But first, I think it is necessary to have facts. Second, there
must be an investigation and, third, there must be a ruling that
the law was broken.
Although there has been no ruling, the
member has concluded that something was not right. This is
simply not the case. The ethics commissioner may now examine
the facts.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, since
the ethics commissioner is on the case, I think it would be much
simpler to give him a little help.
So perhaps the Prime Minister should make a list of his friends
and hand it over to the ethics commissioner for his immediate
perusal, thus putting a stop to questions here in the House.
Will the minister responsible for the ethics commissioner uphold
the law and ask all members of cabinet and the government not to
have any dealings with individuals now under investigation in
order to ensure that the government maintains its credibility,
which is a bit shaky right now?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take it that the Progressive Conservative Party
believes in a presumption of guilt.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Last week she tabled the new Immigration Act. Many Canadians are
very concerned that the new act no longer includes parents in the
family class. Could the minister clarify the matter for us?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the member
and for anyone who is concerned that in the regulations the
definition of family class will include both parents and
grandparents.
Further, it is our intention to see the family class expanded. I
would also point out that in the existing Immigration Act the
definition of family class is included in the regulations. Let
me assure everyone that parents and grandparents will continue to
be included in the family class.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, while the Prime Minister and his government mismanages
the tax dollars of Albertans, he also ignores their democratic
choices.
In 1998 Bert Brown won Alberta's Senate election with more votes
than all the Liberal candidates combined. The fact is that the
Prime Minister only appoints those who will play along with his
song and dance, so to speak.
Alberta's first elected senator was appointed 10 years ago. Why
has the Prime Minister broken another election promise and given
Albertans the Trudeau salute one more time?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why did the Reform Party vote against the Charlottetown
accord? If it had voted for it, we would have had an elected
Senate a long time ago. In the meantime the Prime Minister is
following the existing constitution.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the friends of
the Prime Minister are not the only ones lobbying. So is the
Prime Minister's chief of staff. He is lobbying the Minister of
Public Works to get the government to pay a higher price for a
building owned by Pierre Bourque, whose son ran for the Liberals
in Rosemont in 1993.
Is it a common practice for the government to have Jean
Pelletier, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, pressuring a
minister to give an advantage, using public funds, to a friend
of the Liberal Party who has already been convicted of tax
fraud?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is normal in day-to-day
government operations for the Prime Minister's chief of staff to
talk to ministers about this matter.
I can, however, assure the hon. member that there was no
pressure on the part of the Prime Minister's chief of staff. We
made an offer to purchase this building at the value of the 1991
lease negotiated by a Progressive Conservative government.
* * *
1450
[English]
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today the moderator of the United Church is blasting the mindless
ideology of a market driven society that abandons the poor.
Tomorrow Toronto housing activists are holding yet another vigil
to witness the tragedy of 19 deaths from homelessness this
winter.
I would like to ask the minister responsible for housing why his
government forfeited social housing and abandoned this most basic
human right. Is it because the marketplace is the higher calling
this government is beholden to?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of
Canada continues to invest almost $2 billion a year in social
housing. Since 1995 we have been putting more than half a
billion dollars into the RRAP to rehabilitate vacant buildings so
the homeless could use them.
The member knows that we announced at the beginning of December
a program to address homeless people. She should know very well
because in her riding the RRAP is doing a very good job of
creating units for the homeless to have a roof.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general releases his report tomorrow and is expected
to address the problems that citizenship and immigration is
experiencing with visas.
The new immigration bill introduces a new much needed global
case management system intended to update and secure the
department's tracking system. This initiative will be very
expensive and the costs will not be covered in the increased
budget funding. Could the minister tell the House how much this
system will cost and when it could be in place?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to comment on the
auditor's report once it has been tabled. However, I can comment
on the global case management system which will bring together a
number of different computer systems that function within the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration at the present time.
It is anticipated that the total cost of the system when fully
implemented will be about $200 million, but I am pleased to
inform the member and all members of the House that the funds for
development have been provided in the recent budget. It is
anticipated and I am confident that the resources will be
available to assure implementation of this very important measure
to ensure integrity within the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the defence minister a question in
reference to the commitment of troops by the Prime Minister to
the buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon.
The Israeli officials warned Canadian officials about Hezbollah
terrorist attacks on any UN peacekeepers that may fill that zone.
How many Canadian troops will be committed and how long will they
be committed for?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a proud tradition of assisting
and establishing peace and security in the Middle East, in the
Sinai, in the Golden Heights and many other areas.
If we are called upon, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we
will give it very careful consideration. We will certainly look
at the risk assessment. We do not know at this point in time how
many troops because there is no UN mission. We have not been
asked at this point in time. Certainly, given our tradition, we
will look at it very carefully as the Prime Minister has
indicated.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
for some months now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for the
mandatory labelling of GMOs, and the government has refused to
do so.
Today we have learned that the European Economic Community will
be requiring all products with over 1% GMO content to be
labelled in future.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can the government, which has shown nothing but inertia in this
matter, tell us what the repercussions of the European decision
will be on agro-food exports from Quebec and from Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have told the House numerous times
lately that the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian
Standards Council and a number of other organizations are working
on a set of criteria.
The hon. member refers to legislation in the European Union. She
should follow that up as well. By not taking the approach that
we are taking in Canada the European Union is not able to enforce
its legislation because it does not have a set of criteria that
is meaningful, credible and enforceable at this stage.
* * *
1455
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs sidestepped the key recommendation in
John Harker's report on the civil war in Sudan that would have
placed oil profits from Talisman in trust. Instead the minister
chose to refer it to the United Nations.
Last week, in spite of Canada's lofty perch as chair of the
security council, the UN refused to discuss Sudan or Canada
dropped its plans to have it discussed.
Why did Canada drop the idea of taking this matter to the
security council, and what is the government doing about the
unchecked oil revenues that continue to fuel the ongoing civil
war in the Sudan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, establishing the
agenda of the security council depends upon the full agreement of
all members of the council.
That was not received. Certain members of council did not want
the matter discussed, which I think just points out the urgency
of continuing to develop a broader international consensus than
exists now.
We cannot take action against one country unless there is
agreement. It is certainly my intention when I am at the United
Nations Human Rights Commission this week to speak on behalf of
Canada and the issue of Sudan will be raised.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the House
what she plans to do about the visa problem while we are waiting
for the new global management system?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that steps have
already been undertaken by the department to ensure that safety
and security in all visa posts abroad are a priority. We have
increased training for visa officers and staff in all missions
abroad because we want to ensure integrity in our programs.
I point out to the member that almost $49 million were made
available in the recent budget with additional resources being
made available as a result of the new legislation. The
combination of the two give me confidence that we will be able to
address the issues that face us around the world in ensuring—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
OPTION CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the heritage minister talked
about 100 pages of documents that came forward, but frankly those
pages might just as well be blank because they have not given the
information that Canadians want.
She has dodged in the House time and time again, two years ago
as well as today, one very simple question that she needs to
answer. What happened to the $5 million she gave to Option
Canada? Where is the money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, included in the over 100 pages of documents that
were given out two years ago on a grant that was issued almost
five years ago were responses from the auditor general.
I am sure the member will be very happy to read the
characterization of the work of the auditor general.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
the hundreds of pages of documents that the minister says she
tabled, I would respectfully remind her that the auditor general
wrote her as follows on April 20, 1998:
We note, however, that while this additional information is
useful, it does not make it possible to determine with
sufficient accuracy the nature of the activities that took place
and the results achieved.
Two days later, the auditor general added that it could be
considered misappropriation of funds.
Does the minister not think that she has a moral duty to tell
the public what she did with its money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was the one who gave the letter to the member
opposite, obviously because we wanted to ensure that the audit
was complete. I think that the auditor general was very
respectful with respect to the clean-up that we did.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while it is springtime in Atlantic
Canada and the temperatures are starting to rise, unfortunately
they are also starting to rise in the fishing villages in all of
Atlantic Canada between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Exactly
what is he and his government doing at this time, prior to the
May 1 opening, to calm the tensions that are happening right now
in non-aboriginal and aboriginal fishing communities throughout
the maritime region?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the hon.
member because he put out a press release calming matters. This
is the type of co-operation we need.
1500
I want to also tell the House that as of today we have signed up
eight interim agreements. We have eight agreements in principle.
We are halfway there. We are continuing the hard work. I think
the co-operation of the hon. member has shown that is the way we
can move forward and make sure we bring communities together and
resolve this issue.
* * *
GUN REGISTRY
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Given that her department has just received the allotment of
money for the coming year and given that there are a number of
very important policing matters and justice matters before the
country, is her department prepared to continue to pour hundreds
of millions of dollars into a registry system that is
overbureaucratic and proven not to work with respect to the
prevention of crime within the country?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about a
registry system that does not work. Let me share with the House
that since December 1, 1998 over 3,600 potentially dangerous gun
sales were sent for further investigation, 690 licence
applications have been refused, and 832 licences have been
revoked. We are at work making Canada safe for all Canadians.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present in both official languages the third report of
the Standing Committee on Industry on the subject matter of Bill
C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (letter
that cannot be transmitted by post).
The committee would like to acknowledge the work of the member
for Kitchener Centre on this issue and to thank the witnesses for
participating in our discussions.
* * *
1505
PETITIONS
MARRIAGE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition
from my constituents who pray that parliament withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and
ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today on behalf
of my constituents. One petition deals with an action to end
child poverty.
MAMMOGRAPHY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, another petition deals with the development of
legislation to develop mandatory mammography standards.
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two further petitions would like to see the entire
repeal of the right of landing fee for all immigrants.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the final petition deals with the confirmation of the
opposite sex definition of marriage.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions today.
One petition contains 60 signatures from concerned farmers in my
constituency, including people from St. Albert, Morinville,
Busby, Alcomdale, Rivière Qui Barre, Calahoo, Stony Plain and
Spruce Grove.
The petitioners call on parliament to recognize that the family
farm is one of the cornerstones of Canadian society and that the
federal government must act immediately to protect the interests
of Canadian farmers both at home and abroad by campaigning
against foreign subsidies to agriculture.
CHILD POVERTY
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the other petition contains 50 signatures from residents
in St. Albert, Morinville and Edmonton. They call upon parliament
to use the year 2000 budget to introduce a multi-year plan to
improve the well-being of Canada's children and to fulfil the
1989 resolution of the House to end child poverty by the year
2000.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition from over 100 of my constituents,
which include members of the Pine Ridge Bible Chapel and also the
Emmanuel Pentecostal Church of Port Perry. They call on
parliament that Bill C-23 affirm the opposite sex definition of
marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as
a unique institution. They request the withdrawal of Bill C-23.
HEPATITIS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is
my privilege and honour to bring in thousands of names from
Newfoundland to Victoria supporting Bill C-232 and it happens to
be my own bill on Hepatitis Awareness Month. I personally wish
to thank Mr. Joey Haché of Ottawa for supporting us and getting
these signatures forward in order to get that bill passed very
quickly.
CANADA POST
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling several petitions.
The first two petitions are with regard to the mail route
couriers. Many of the people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap
depend upon these couriers to deliver and pick up their mail.
Some would like the right to form a union and bargain
collectively. It is my pleasure to table these petitions today.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is also a pleasure to table several petitions
from residents of my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap who express
their serious opposition to Bill C-23. They are justly concerned
that the government is not doing enough to protect the
institution of marriage, define it as a union of one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others.
I join them in asking the government not to base any benefits or
legislation on people's private sexual activity.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 72 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 72—Mr. Leon E. Benoit
With regard to the money given by the department of Indian
affairs to the Treaty Six Tribal Council for employment programs
for the last three years: (a) what was the total amount given
each year and (b) what is the specific breakdown of how this
money has been spent?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): In so far as the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the response is as
follows.
There are two tribal councils in the treaty six area of Alberta.
They are the Yellowhead Tribal Council west of Edmonton and the
Tribal Chiefs' Association, also known as the Tribal Chiefs'
Ventures Incorporated, located in the St. Paul area. A third
first nation organization within the treaty six area comprising
all treaty six first nations in Alberta is the Confederacy of
Treaty Six First Nations. The confederacy is not a tribal
council.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
not provided employment program funding to the Confederacy of
Treaty Six First Nations or to the tribal councils during the
past three years.
[Translation]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-23, an act to
modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and
obligations, as reported (with amendments) from the committee;
and of the motions in Group No. 1.
1510
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, prior to question period I was making
the point that the effects of Bill C-23 are not necessarily
benign, although members opposite would lead us to believe that
they are. I would like to point out that for hundreds of
generations and in almost every society I am aware of there have
been social proscriptions against homosexual unions.
Now we are more civilized. We do not attempt, as Mr. Trudeau
would say, to interfere in the bedrooms of the nation. That is
fair enough. But we should remember that all through history,
heterosexual unions have been recognized as having a social
purpose. They have never been considered to be purely
recreational or even sentimental arrangements.
Marriage is the foundation on which civil society rests. Society
extends certain benefits to strengthen and support the
institution. To extend those same benefits to homosexual couples
for no good reason inferentially diminishes the institution.
I frankly do not care how homosexuals choose to organize their
lives, but to treat their unions as de facto marriages is
downright silly. That is not just my personal opinion. In June
1994 the present government House leader wrote in a letter to a
constituent, “I do not believe that homosexuals should be
treated as families. My wife and I do not claim we are
homosexuals. Why should homosexuals pretend that they form a
family?” What happened? In six years there seems to have been a
slight change of opinion over there, at least on the part of the
House leader.
In 1996 when we were debating Bill C-33, we were repetitiously
informed that the bill was not a Trojan horse, that it was purely
a matter of protecting homosexuals in the workplace and in
securing accommodation, that there was absolutely no future
intent of bringing in same sex benefits.
Here we are four years later and where is that promise of the
Liberals now? I guess what we have is just another indication
that a Liberal's word does not count for much, because this is
what they told us. They told it to us over and over and over
again. Now times have changed and four years have passed. What
is next? How many more years will it be before this government
or another one with the same stripes decides that it wants again
to do some social engineering and starts to redefine the entire
institution of marriage.
This is incremental. This is the Liberal way. The Liberals
have been doing it not only in the field of marriage and family,
but in several other areas as well. The camel's nose goes into
the tent and little by little he edges his way in and knocks the
tent down.
This has got to stop. There is no sound basis, no social
reason, no fiscal reason and no political reason for changing the
status quo with respect to benefits. Why the government has
decided to take this leap I have no idea. I am sure that Mr.
Trudeau is appalled but he is no longer here. I am appalled. A
lot of people are appalled.
It is not a question of moralizing. It is a question of common
sense.
1515
Not too many years ago, if anyone had suggested that homosexual
couples living together under the same roof should be awarded the
same social benefits as married people, they would have been
laughed out of town. It would have been considered hilarious.
Yet here we are. Is this progress? I doubt it.
I do wish that the government would reconsider and take another
look at this hasty legislation. A lot of amendments are coming
up that, although they will not fix it, could certainly improve
it.
I challenge the government in the interest of common sense, if
nothing else, to give very serious consideration to some of the
amendments my party has laid on the table. It should look at the
bill again, remember what country we live in, and think about the
people in Canada who are by and large terribly offended by the
legislation.
I have received more correspondence, more phone calls and more
e-mails about the bill than I have ever in my seven years in
parliament received about any other legislation. This tells me
something and it should tell the government something.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to a fair bit of the debate on this
issue, especially at report stage last week and again this week.
I feel there are some things I need to say which in a sense
respond to comments that have come largely from the other side of
the House.
This should not be necessary and this should not be relevant,
but I feel I need to establish my credentials to speak on family
matters. The fact is that I have been married to the same man
for 37 years. I have borne and raised three children and spent a
good part of that time as a full time, stay at home mother. I
now have grandchildren. I now also have a somewhat older mother
who needs a fair bit of family care. We are all a family.
According to some people in the Chamber, I am no longer a family
because my husband and I can no longer have children. Therefore
we should not be entitled to any benefits because we do not fit
that old criterion of the family unit being there to raise
children. We have been there and done that.
Families in Canada come in many different shapes and sizes these
days. Families can be people looking after elderly parents. They
can be brothers and sisters living together. They can be members
of a family looking after other members of the family who are not
able to care for themselves. Families are not necessarily
mothers and fathers. One-third of marriages end in divorce,
which is a pretty sad figure until we consider that the other
two-thirds end in death.
The fact is that people establishing committed, loving
relationships of long term duration is to the benefit of society
at large. That is what the bill is about. The bill is about
recognizing that not every family is the same.
We have a very clear law on marriage which has been recognized
in common law for a century and a half. It is now also included
in the preamble to this legislation, but also for nearly half a
century we have recognized other kinds of relationships outside
marriage.
We have recognized common law relationships for a long time now
for the purposes of establishing the obligations and the benefits
of those relationships. We have not considered them the same as
marriage in the legal sense, but we have nonetheless recognized
that these are generally committed, long term relationships that
have many of the same qualities as a legal marriage.
1520
What has bothered me in this debate is the way we have been
speaking about fellow human beings. It has bothered me a great
deal that we have talked about hundreds of thousands of our
fellow Canadians as if they are somehow inferior human beings. I
can put it no other way.
Homosexuality is a fact of life for many Canadians. It is not a
choice of lifestyle. It is a fact of life. It seems to me that
the comments I have heard on this topic have forgotten completely
the people we are talking about are somebody's sons, daughters,
fathers, mothers, cousins or next door neighbours. For most of
our history these people have had to live in secret, hiding who
they are and feeling a sense of shame about who they are because
of the societal attitudes I have heard expressed in the Chamber.
It is hardly an attitude of inclusiveness toward our fellow
Canadians.
It is this attitude which leads young people who realize in
their teens that they are not heterosexual to have a whole layer
of difficulty added on to growing and developing into adults, not
because of who they are and what they are but because of the
attitudes of society.
None of us can expect to be whole human beings if we are hit
every day, as our society does, with the kinds of messages I have
been hearing in the House, the message that what we are is
shameful, to be hidden and despised.
I will say it again. These people are somebody's sons,
daughters, fathers and mothers. In my view if what we are doing
with the legislation, as we did with common law marriage nearly a
half century ago, is encouraging and recognizing long term
committed relationships I believe that is to the benefit of all
society. I do not see how anyone could argue that this takes
away from the institution of marriage. I do not see how anyone
could argue that this weakens the moral fibre of society.
I must say I have been somewhat mystified by the total
preoccupation with sex on the other side of the House. The bill
says nothing about sex. It talks about committed, long term
relationships. I am married. Whether or not I am married in
law has absolutely nothing to do with whether my husband and I
have sex, nor whether two people having sex has anything to do
with their being recognized as a legitimate, long term
relationship for the purposes of the bill.
I heard talk about the importance of having both parents as if
somehow recognizing same sex relationships for the purposes of
benefits and obligations would ensure that every child has two
parents. As I said earlier, one-third of all marriages ends in
divorce. The fact is that we as a society have to deal with
that. We have to deal with the fact that communities and society
are responsible for children as much as the two parents who
happen to have borne them.
1525
Today I only want to say that to the extent people live with
dignity, they live full and complete lives and our whole society
benefits. What we have done until now is to relegate same sex
relationships to the back alleys of society and in many cases the
back alleys of our cities. That is not healthy for the people
involved and it is not healthy for Canadian society.
I recognize that the bill offends the sense or morality of some
people but it does not deal with sin. It does not deal with our
sense of morality. It deals with legal benefits and legal
obligations. I am quite entitled to feel how I want about what
activities I think people might be engaged in, in their homes.
They are quite entitled to feel however they want about mine. The
legislation has nothing to do with that. It makes no moral
judgments. It simply says how people are to be treated in
society and what obligations they have to each other.
I belong to a religious tradition that has in its background
something called the Inquisition where for a long time people
thought they could coerce others into sharing their beliefs. It
was a period of some shame and for which the Pope of the Roman
Catholic Church has recently apologized.
I will not sit here in the Chamber and make decisions as if
everybody in Canadian society has to share my beliefs and conform
to my particular moral standards. I do not think any of us has
the right to do that. It harms society when we do that and it
ultimately harms ourselves when we judge some people in our
community and society to be less worthy and inferior.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-23 on
behalf of the constituents of St. Albert who I feel are largely
opposed to the content of the bill.
I was listening to the previous speaker say that it is not for
any one of us to judge how anybody else in the country should
live. I agree with that statement, but we are finding that the
Liberal government will now impose upon Canadians or confer upon
a certain category of Canadians benefits that they never had
before.
Much of this conferring of benefits is very much in
contradiction to the opinions of a large segment of society and a
very large segment of the society in my constituency. From my
perspective I certainly endorse the government's position that
there should be no discrimination. We should not discriminate
and deny people where they want to live, where their employment
is, the types of careers they want to follow and that type of
thing.
However, it is a step beyond when we recognize these types of
unions and put them on the same level as marriage, saying that it
does not matter what kind of relationship it is if it is a
relationship that is ongoing. It is very unfortunate that the
government has put in there the word conjugal. If the government
is prepared to recognize any kind of a relationship then the
morality of the nation has been debased.
Going back to the dawn of history and even before, society has
organized its way in solid, committed unions between men and
women.
That is the way in which every society in the world has organized
itself. There must be something in it.
1530
I used the word committed. Unfortunately, marriages break down
far too often, in this country and all around the world.
However, a society of human beings should recognize that
marriage, the union for the purpose of the procreation of
children and for the raising of the next generation is a
fundamental part of any society; not just our society, but any
society. That union which provides the home to raise children,
the next generation, deserves the support and the sanction of any
government, including this government.
Children need our assistance. We hear often about abused,
neglected and malnourished children, children who have problems.
Therefore, we need to nurture that environment. That has been
the focus of marriage and government support for marriage down
through the ages. I do not believe that obligation has changed
in any way.
In the last 20 or 30 years we have gone from recognizing that
our intolerance toward other relationships should not be
continued to the point where we not only insist that we shall not
discriminate against, we now confer benefits upon other unions as
if they were the same as marriage.
The other thing I take great exception to is the way the
government is doing this. It has introduced Bill C-23, which is
an omnibus bill that will amend quite a number of statutes. Each
statute will be amended to indicate that where there is a
conjugal relationship the benefits shall be conferred, but it
says absolutely nothing about marriage.
The Minister of Justice introduced an amendment to the bill
which, in essence, is a preamble to the bill that recognizes
marriage as the union of men and women to the exclusion of all
others. However, it is only in the preamble of the bill. She
has not asked that every statute be changed. Therefore, when
there are legal actions pertaining to the statutes that are being
changed and the courts look at these statutes they will see
entrenched in law conjugal relationships exceeding one year but
nothing about marriage.
The Canadian Alliance has asked that marriage be inserted into
every statute that is being changed to recognize conjugal
relationships. The Minister of Justice said no. The Liberal
government said no. Does this mean that conjugal relationships
of any kind are now superior to marriage? The government is
prepared to entrench conjugal relationships in law but refuses to
put marriage in law. We have to ask that question. Is marriage
now second class to any kind of conjugal relationship?
We have to ask that question too in the context of, for example,
the Income Tax Act. For the last 30 or 40 years it has included
in it what is now called the marriage penalty. Two people who
live together have greater tax advantages than a husband and wife
who live together where one parent stays at home to be with the
family.
The supreme court tells us that it is eliminating
discrimination. When asked to adjudicate on acts of parliament
and legislation, it has struck down acts when they contravene the
charter of rights and freedoms.
In doing so, we now have marriage penalties in law. We now have
acts of parliament that recognize conjugal relationships of any
kind, but which refuse to recognize marriage. Therefore, I have
to ask the questions: Where is our society going? What comes
next?
1535
While the States is the forerunner of many things, unfortunately
it is also the forerunner of things which we do not always think
too highly of. The whole challenge to the charter of rights and
freedoms and to the legislation that has been in existence in
this country is based on the fact that some people say they are
discriminated against and denied benefits based on their sexual
orientation. The courts have agreed. Here we are today
recognizing these liaisons in legislation while we refuse to
recognize marriage in the same legislation.
Without being trite or facetious, this article from the U.S.
magazine went on to refer to liaisons including more than two
people and how these individuals are now starting to ask about
their rights. They want to know if they are entitled to benefits
as well. The courts would then be asked to deliberate as to
whether there was discrimination against liaisons including more
than two people. Perhaps the answer would be yes. Where would
it stop?
Had we not had the marriage penalty for the last 30 or 40 years,
if we had raised our children in a nurturing environment of
respect, the way that society has evolved over the last 5,000 to
10,000 years, perhaps we would not be debating this problem in
the House today which says that we have to recognize conjugal
relationships at the expense of marriage. Marriage is now second
class.
I have heard from many people in my constituency of St. Albert
who are opposed to this legislation. I would like to record my
opposition to this legislation and I would hope that the
government would listen to the people and reject this
legislation.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is in some respects a strange debate. One has the
impression of two different communities, two solitudes, and
perhaps a good deal of the confusion stems from the fact that
people have not read the bill. I would not discourage them from
reading the bill. It is not a piece of poetry. It is a rather
prosaic bill. It is a legislative response, as is the obligation
of parliament under our system of government. With our modified,
quasi separation of powers, we have a response by parliament to a
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M. v H. It is a
response to that decision, no more and no less.
If we read the bill looking for excitement, it will not be
found. It puts together 68 existing federal statutes that are
affected by the court decision. It corrects—and that is a legal
word—those pieces of law by appropriate amendments in response
to the supreme court decision, no more and no less. It is a
compendium of 68 laws. It is not a bill on marriage. Anybody
who read the bill would find that out.
The title gives it away immediately, the modernization of
benefits and obligations act. It is not a bill on marriage. It
is not an amendment to section 15 of the charter of rights on
which the original decision in M. v H. in the Supreme Court of
Canada was based. Obviously, to amend section 15 we would have
to have the concurrence of the federal parliament and all 10
provincial legislatures.
It is essentially a carpentering job. Someone very carefully put
together what is a very dull bill with limited objectives.
1540
In my earlier address to the House on this bill I explained that
it is limited to its special mandate, a legislative response as
is our constitutional obligation as parliament to the judicial
ruling, that it does not alter the legal definition of marriage
in any way, one way or another.
In that sense I regard the government amendment—in a legal
sense—as being unnecessary. It is inserted, though, as lawyers
often do, in the phrase ex abundante cautela—for greater
certainty. But it does not change the definition of marriage.
It does not add to the fact. The bill itself does not do that.
Any steps in the redefinition of marriage, if one were to
attempt that, would require a comprehensive piece of legislation
which would spell out concrete rights and obligations, conditions
of a status and how one enters into it. It would be another law
on another occasion. It would be something reached after a
prior, necessary community consensus had been built, with some
degree of interparty discussion. That is for the future if
someone wishes to proceed that way.
What is interesting in terms of this debate, and the
constructive and useful thing which has emerged from it, is the
opportunity to ask parliament to take note of the changes in
society, the general recognition that relationships can exist on
bases where both parties recognize them but which have no
necessary connection with a sexual relationship.
We speak of bona fide dependency relationships. This is an idea
whose time, historically, has come. I am encouraged in that by
the large amount of correspondence, messages, communications and
personal meetings I have had in response to remarks which I and
others have made on this particular situation.
What are dependency relationships? They are relationships of
children and parents. We find many situations in our society
where children support an aged parent, or siblings, brothers and
sisters, or two sisters and two brothers support each other.
We find many situations of persons not in a familial
relationship who share a life together without any sexual
relationship. If it is a demonstrated, bona fide relationship,
should the law not be prepared to recognize that in our society?
It does require a bit of work, and the minister promised to
study this. I said “With all deliberate speed”, in the phrase
of the United States supreme court, “can we not get some
reasonably quick action?” I understand that will be done.
There will be tradeoffs involved which have to be understood and
represented in a legal form, that is to say, a bona fide
relationship with legal consequences cannot be unilaterally
terminated except for cause. There would be a limitation on the
power unilaterally to renege, amend or terminate; proof of
registration or something else to establish the beginning of a
relationship and the irrevocability of its termination.
It is not exactly tabula rasa. My colleague, the excellent
member for Parkdale—High Park, who has given a good deal of
thought to these problems, reminded me of the law school cases
which I learned in my second month in law school, Murray and
Alderson. In the 19th century, courts were being asked to
recognize such relationships and give financial consequences to
them, where dependency was proven and where in fact both parties
recognized them adequately. This could be put in the legal form
of a statute. It exists in a more rudimentary form through the
common law.
When I speak of non-revocability, it would seem to me that
parties could not terminate unilaterally, although there may be
special circumstances. For example, a child supporting an aged
parent might choose to get married. It does not terminate the
obligation to the parent. One may look to some sort of
comparative adjustment of the obligations.
I cite this simply to say that there are problems, but they are
not difficult problems. There are no essential legal barriers
that wise legislation could not take care of.
1545
There will be claims of the survivors' in dependency
relationships to estates, to immovables, but once again these are
issues that can be addressed. The legal remedies for them, the
legal formula to take care of them, can be established without an
undue amount of work required. There are sufficient precedents
in the common law to provide just that sort of base for
legislative action.
The constructive thing that has come out of this debate has been
a heightened community awareness that the time perhaps has come
to give legal recognition and apply legal consequences to
dependency relationships voluntarily entered into and established
on a bona fide basis. That is the interesting challenge.
This is a modest bill, a prosaic bill that simply changes 68
federal laws in response to a supreme court decision. It is our
constitutional obligation, as a co-ordinate organ of government,
to respond in that fashion. It does not venture into the
definition of a new code of marriage. That, if it is to be
attempted, would be a subject for another time, another debate
and another law if and when the sufficient consensus is built in
support of it.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it would be best to begin my speech today by taking
stock of exactly where we are in Canada. I represent a riding in
Saskatchewan that is currently enduring an agriculture crisis of
a magnitude similar to what was experienced during the Great
Depression. Saskatchewan has generations of farmers who own
farms that have been in their families for generations and they
face the prospect of losing their farms. The income crisis
facing Saskatchewan farmers is that bleak.
For years the Canadian Alliance has laid out proposals, lists
and solutions before the government of where it could immediately
act to address the problems in our grain transportation system
and our grain marketing system and the problems we face on the
international market because of unfair trade practices of foreign
nations and so on. This week we will be releasing a summary of
65 town hall meetings we held all winter long in farm communities
across the prairies bringing forward solutions, most of them
proposed by the farmers themselves, but the Liberal government
refuses to look at that or address it in any way, shape or form.
This country is currently experiencing one of the greatest
scandals in the history of our nation, which is the
misappropriation and mismanagement of funds through the human
resources development department. It is incompetent and
deceitful and Canadians deserve better.
Our health care system is in tatters. Waiting lists are growing
every day and, in many cases, people are forced to leave our
country and seek health care elsewhere.
We are the highest taxed country of all industrialized nations
in the world. Under this Liberal government taxes have been
increased 69 times at last count over the last seven years
placing families under a tremendous burden. It is such an
unreasonable level of taxation that most of our well educated
professionals are leaving the country. They are being forced out
of their own homes to go elsewhere to earn a living because of
the great disparity in taxes, the great differential between
filing a tax return in Houston or in Calgary.
Our justice system completely defies logic. We cater to
criminals and the victims have no rights. It is a disturbing
situation that needs all kinds of repairs, from the prison system
to the Young Offenders Act to this conditional sentencing that is
going on, all of this judicial activism.
On Friday the Prime Minister appointed a member from
Saskatchewan to the Senate. As far as I am concerned, this was a
slap in the face to the residents of Saskatchewan because I know
most Saskatchewan residents would like to elect our senators so
we can have meaningful representation.
1550
Where is Senate reform? What about parliamentary reform?
Everyone knows how this place runs. There are no free votes.
The government never resorts to the use of referendums. It is a
dictatorship.
What are we doing here today? Despite all the problems facing
our nation, the government has brought forward a bill to extend
benefits depending on whether or not one is having gay sex. Is
that the depth to which the government has to sink? What about
all the urgent matters facing our nation? No, it is preoccupied
with extending benefits to people who have homosexual sex.
Let us go back to June 1999. The Canadian Alliance at that time
put forward a motion that read “marriage is and should remain
the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others
and parliament will take all necessary steps within the
jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this
definition of marriage in Canada”. That motion passed but it
was not a bill and had no statutory effect. What we see now,
despite the expressed will of parliament last June, is a bill
that will not preserve the definition of marriage but will
destroy it. I submit that Bill C-23 is an insult to every member
of parliament who voted last June to preserve the definition of
marriage.
The government knows full well that the vast majority of
Canadians are upset about this bill. They do not agree to
extending the benefits that accrue to married couples to
homosexual couples. I know from my own experience in my
constituency and from talking to my colleagues that there has
been a large public outcry. My constituency office has been
deluged with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mails demanding
that the government abort this ill-thought out legislation.
In response to this public outcry, the minister put forward an
amendment at the beginning of the bill that defines marriage but
that has no legal effect. It is meaningless. Any judge looking
at any of the acts modified by Bill C-23—and I believe there are
68 of them—will not see that interpretative clause defining
marriage. Legal experts have clearly stated that in order to
have the effect of retaining the current definition of marriage,
the definition of spouse and marriage should be placed in each of
the affected statutes modified by Bill C-23.
That is exactly what the Canadian Alliance has done. We have
put forth amendments, which will be voted on tonight, that define
spouse as either a man or a woman who has entered into a marriage
and that define marriage as the lawful union of one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others. That is what the legal
experts say will be required to retain the current definition of
marriage and that is what Canadian Alliance members are
proposing, but that is not how the Liberal government will vote.
I believe the reason for that is that their ultimate goal is to
destroy the institution of marriage or at least make gay couples
the equivalent of what currently are married couples, in other
words, gay marriages.
On March 20 of this year delegates to a Liberal convention voted
on a resolution to legalize same sex marriages. Although that
resolution was defeated, it had a very close margin of 468 to
365. The New Democratic Party already has the policy that it
wants same sex marriages.
In addition to urging all members of the House to support the
Canadian Alliance amendments, which would replace the definition
in each of the affected statutes, I recently submitted a private
member's bill, Bill C-460, which was an act to amend the Marriage
Act and to include and place the specific definition of marriage
in that act.
1555
Unfortunately, because of the undemocratic nature of this
institution, that bill will probably never see the light of day.
If it ever does, I would certainly hope that all members of the
House would see their way clear to support it. I know that will
not happen because, as I said, the NDP officially has a policy
contrary to that.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned the urgent matters
facing this nation, one of which is taxation. I will briefly
outline for the benefit of the House solution 17, which is the
Canadian Alliance's proposal for tax reform.
When we form government, we will implement a single rate of
taxation of 17%, combined with a spousal and personal deduction
of $10,000 plus a $3,000 deduction per child. The net effect of
that is that two million low income Canadians who currently pay
some tax will pay no tax at all.
I will wrap up by saying that in addition to supporting fair
family taxation, the Canadian Alliance would also address issues
that the Liberals have been unwilling to tackle, such as child
pornography, criminal justice reform, child custody and access
issues and many other issues that affect families because we are
a pro-family party as opposed to the anti-family policies of the
Liberal government.
Let it be known that MPs who vote against the Canadian Alliance
amendments in tonight's vote will be voting against the
definition of marriage in federal law.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question.
Some hon. members: Question?
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 1
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 5
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 7
stands deferred.
The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 to 24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41,
43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66 to
68, 70, 71, 73 to 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 90, 94 to 96, 98,
99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 to 110, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143,
146 to 149, 153 to 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166 to 169, 171 and
172.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 113. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 113
stands deferred.
1600
The next question is on Motion No. 144. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion No. 144
stands deferred.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
[English]
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House the
10 top reasons Bill C-23 should be withdrawn.
The tenth reason is that the government has ignored the Egan
decision of the Supreme Court which ruled that the government is
not constitutionally required to extend publicly funded old age
security benefits to same sex couples. The Egan decision dealt
with the question of federal spousal benefits which are linked to
the public purse. Clauses 192 to 209 of Bill C-23 amend the Old
Age Security Act so it seems the Liberals are directly
contradicting the court's decision in Egan. The Liberals are
using muddy logic again and they are subjectively adhering to
court decisions; some they choose and some they do not choose.
The ninth reason is that according to recent reports the Prime
Minister has decreed that Liberal members will not be able to
represent constituents with their voices on Bill C-23. He has
insisted that this vote will be a whip vote and require that each
member of the Liberal caucus votes for the bill. It has long
been the position of the Canadian Alliance that the first
responsibility of members of parliament is to represent the will
of their constituents. Without this basic principle at work,
democracy is an illusion and Canadians are in fact electing a
four to five year dictatorship.
In spite of this edict from the Prime Minister, 14 Liberals had
the courage to vote against the bill at second reading. Some
others who had less courage hid behind the curtains and chose not
to vote. If a whip vote on the bill will not work for the Prime
Minister, he should see the writing on the wall and withdraw Bill
C-23.
The eighth reason to rethink the bill and withdraw it is the
fact that the Naskapi nation of Quebec points out that Bill C-23
overrides its treaty rights. The Cree Naskapi, whose treaty
agreement is referred to in the bill, came before the committee
to share its concerns about the imposition of common law, same
sex partners in its cultural definition of family and what it
would do to treaty rights and obligations.
Members of the Cree Naskapi made a strong case that the approach
the government should take was to come and talk with them and
negotiate first. Let them inform the people and then perhaps
have a referendum on the issue. I think the Cree Naskapi are
right and I think a whole bunch of other Canadians would
appreciate the same respect from the federal government on the
issue.
1605
The seventh reason to withdraw the bill is the public's reaction
to it. In spite of very little media attention and that the
Liberal government is trying to sneak it through under the cover
of other issues, the public outpouring of concern against the
bill from coast to coast has been nothing short of miraculous.
Members of parliament from all parties admit to getting large
volumes of faxes, e-mails, phone calls and letters concerning
Bill C-23. Most say they have received more on this issue than
any other issue this session. Without exception the very great
majority of citizens are calling for Bill C-23 to be withdrawn.
The justice minister knows this. We cannot even get through on
her fax line. The petitions against Bill C-23 are coming in like
rain every day in the House. We hear them one after another.
The sixth reason to withdraw the bill is that there must be
something wrong with it if when after only four hours into debate
at second reading the Liberal government moved closure to stop
debate in the House. At report stage and third reading it has
moved closure again after one day of debate. This is an omnibus
bill. It affects almost every statute, 68 in all. It will
impact on 20 different departments. The bill extends all public
benefits to people who were not eligible before. It has sweeping
implications for our social structures.
Why will the Liberals not allow debate? Why do we have closure
again, for the 67th time by the Liberal government? Is it afraid
more people will find out what it is up to with the bill and hold
them accountable for it come the next election? If that is not
what it is, why is it being rushed through? If that is why it is
pushing Bill C-23 through it is another good reason to withdraw
it.
The fifth reason to withdraw the bill is the treatment it got in
committee after second reading. The sweeping omnibus bill which
affects 68 statutes in total got a short three and a half days to
hear from witnesses in committee. Many individuals and groups
with important perspectives were not allowed to present to the
justice committee examining the bill. No provincial voices were
heard. No travel was allowed in order to get broader public
input. Witness lists were shortened.
My motion to televise the proceedings and to get broader public
input were voted down by the Liberal dominated committee. The
majority of witnesses that appeared before the committee were
heavily weighted in favour of Bill C-23. In short, the committee
process was abused to give the false impression of fair public
consultation.
I know the Chair is getting excited as we get close to number
one, but the fourth reason Bill C-23 should be withdrawn is that
the Income Tax Act which contains a definition of family has been
totally changed. It has been changed from the commonly
understood definition to a new definition that will include any
two people of the same sex who share accommodation for a year and
have what they think is a conjugal relationship.
It is true that the section of the Income Tax Act which defines
family was primarily intended for application of tax policies
toward Hutterite colonies, but we can be sure that the Hutterites
were not consulted to see if they felt there was any need to
accommodate same sex relationships as a family. Very likely they
would strongly object to that inclusion. Bill C-23 is an
unwarranted redefinition of family and that is another reason it
should be withdrawn.
The third reason to withdraw the bill is that prior to the bill
there was a definition in law which stated what it took to be
considered related to another person. This definition stated
that family relations were those related by blood, marriage or
adoption. This definition is also generally consistent with the
Canadian Alliance policy. Bill C-23 strikes down that definition
of family and redefines it to include any two people of the same
sex who live together for a year in a conjugal relationship or a
sexual relationship.
The intent to redefine long held understandings of what it takes
to be related to someone in order to give public benefits to two
men or two women who have a sexual relationship is at the very
least unnecessary. This is the third reason.
1610
The second reason to withdraw Bill C-23 is that even though it
proposes to extend all the benefits and obligations that were
previously reserved for marriage, it is impossible from the bill
to be sure who those others are that qualify. To qualify for
public marriage benefits the bill proposed that two men who live
together for a year in a conjugal relationship would be included,
but nowhere in the bill is the term conjugal relationship
defined. Yet it is the primary qualifying criterion.
The dictionary says that a conjugal relationship is one that has
sexual activity as in marriage, but when asked if sexual activity
is a requirement for these benefits the government says no, maybe
and probably. Sometimes it says yes. It tells us that the
courts know what is a conjugal relationship. This is the second
reason to withdraw Bill C-23, because it refuses to define who
qualifies and drives people into the courtroom instead.
The first reason is that although the justice minister tells us
repeatedly the bill has nothing to do with marriage, it in fact
gives every benefit and obligation in federal public policy to
same sex relationships that were previously reserved for
marriage, with the exception that if one is married one must go
through a divorce to formally discontinue the relationship.
The terms marriage and spouse are taken out of several of the
statutes affected by Bill C-23. Bill C-23 sets the perfect legal
stage for a court ruling to force same sex marriage on Canadians,
and they know it. They voiced their concerns and forced the
justice minister to put forward an amendment to define marriage,
but she did it in such a way that expert legal opinion said the
amendment would have no legal effect. Only the Canadian Alliance
amendments clearly set down the definitions of marriage and
spouse in every statute.
If the Liberals vote against defining marriage in an effective
way in legislation, that would be the number one reason why Bill
C-23 should be withdrawn.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in the House for a second
time to speak in support of Bill C-23. I had the honour and
privilege of being one of the first MPs to rise in the House to
strongly support the legislation after the Minister of Justice
introduced it.
Before I speak to some of the amendments, some of the letters
and the inaccurate facts that have been passed out even today as
I am sitting here listening to my colleagues from the Canadian
Alliance speak, I want to address a couple of things that the
last two speakers have said.
The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt talked about the public being
opposed to the legislation. The member for Calgary Centre talked
about the lack of witnesses in hearings into this matter. While
I was sitting here listening I found that quite incredulous. Do
they not speak to members of the Canadian Alliance Party in
Ontario? Have they not spoken to Mr. Long, who I understand will
be seeking the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party? Are
Canadian Alliance Party members who live in Ontario not
considered to be members by the Canadian Alliance Party or by the
public?
Let us look at what happened on October 25, 1999, in the Ontario
legislature. The Ontario government is headed by Mr. Harris. I
believe Mr. Long, who hopes to be the leader of this great new
party, was well known to Mr. Harris. On October 25, 1999,
Queen's Park introduced bill 5.
What did that bill do? It amended 67 provincial statutes to
provide benefits to same gender relationships. Unlike the
hearings we have had, unlike the debate that is going on today
and has been going on, do hon. members know that bill 5 passed in
five days without debate and without a recorded vote? It is
amazing, is it not, that bill was endorsed by all three parties
in Ontario?
1615
My riding is in the province of Ontario. I can confidently say
that when I speak today and vote in favour of the bill I will be
doing so because I represent my constituents and the will of the
majority of the constituents in my riding.
There has been a lot of talk about marriage and the definition
of marriage. Quite frankly I am personally of the opinion that
it was not necessary to put the definition of marriage in this
legislation because this legislation has nothing to do with
marriage. Notwithstanding that, I will support the amendment
proposed by the Minister of Justice.
For all of the talk about losing the sanctity of marriage and
that the government is forcing this through and it is happening
very quickly, I should remind members opposite that in its haste
the Ontario government failed to take into account widespread
public concern around the issue of marriage. Yet the federal
government and the justice minister have felt it important to
include the definition of marriage in this legislation.
Let us look at what the bill is about. The purpose of the bill
is straightforward. As I said on February 15, the bill amends
legislation in order to recognize the principle of equal
treatment for all common law relationships.
The member for Calgary Centre talked about how this bill was
going to extend the same benefits that married couples are
receiving. That is not true at all. Right now benefits are
being extended to common law spouses and those benefits will be
extended to same sex couples.
The bill looks at both obligations and rights. The important
thing to remember is that the legislation is about fairness,
tolerance and non-discrimination.
My colleague the deputy whip spoke about the fact that in a
changing society the family unit is changing. She talked about
her children. I have been married for 22 years and I also have
three children. We have discussed this legislation with my
children. My children do not understand what the big ado is all
about. If there is one legacy I can leave to my children when I
leave Parliament Hill it is the legacy of fairness,
non-discrimination and being taught that it is not fair to
discriminate any longer. Intolerance is not acceptable in Canada
or in our Canadian values.
Members have also talked about the whole concept of widening the
legislation to include brothers and sisters and dependency. One
of the things I have not heard talked about here at all is the
equitable principle in law known as quantum meruit. This
equitable principle often arises in estate situations when a
deceased person has failed to provide adequate compensation in
his or her will or may have died intestate or may have left a
legacy in a will but has not sufficiently compensated a person
who provided either services or work for the deceased person
during his or her lifetime. This happens often in relationships
between brothers and sisters or parents and their children. It
is very important when we talk about the concept of widening the
whole area of dependency that we do not ignore the equitable
principle known as quantum meruit.
Let us look at the definition of the principle of quantum meruit
as defined in Black's Law Dictionary. According to Black's
quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine based on the concept that
no one who benefits by the labour and materials of another should
be unjustly enriched thereby. Under those circumstances the law
implies the promise to pay a reasonable amount for the labour and
materials furnished even absent a specific contract therefor.
There are four essential elements of recovery under quantum
meruit. First is that valuable services were rendered or
materials furnished. Second is that it was done for the person
sought to be charged. Third is which services and materials were
accepted by that person sought to be charged were used and
enjoyed by them. Fourth is that under such circumstances a
reasonably notified person sought to be charged, that plaintiff
in performing such services was expected to be paid by that
person sought to be charged.
The principle of quantum meruit applies whether there is an
expressed contract or an implied contract.
1620
During my years as a practising lawyer about one-third of my
practice was spent in estate law and often this principle came
up. For example, a nephew looked after his aunt and drove her
from place to place. The aunt had promised him a piece of land.
She died intestate. There was nothing left. While the statute
on frauds came into play and we could not obtain specific
performance for the land, the nephew was compensated for the
services that he performed.
When we talk about dependency, let us look at the equitable
doctrine of quantum meruit. When we do so is it something that
we as the federal government would impose in our legislation or
is it a matter of property and civil rights which therefore
becomes a provincial matter? Again it is a constitutional
question.
We can say let us include dependency, that it is not fair when a
person lives with and looks after his or her sister and does not
receive anything on the sister's death. However, a remedy at law
already exists to compensate a person for the services that have
been rendered provided that one could reasonably expect to be
paid for those services.
I would like to take the last couple of minutes to rule out some
of the common myths which have come forward by a concentrated,
well driven lobby group of a number of people because the letters
we have been receiving in my office are all the same.
On the matter of secrecy, the House has held debates and the
committee has held hearings. By the time the legislation passes,
it will have had at least five months before the House and the
ability to talk about it.
I would submit that the member for Calgary Centre was incorrect
when he said that Bill C-23 will grant common law partnerships
all the rights and benefits that married unions now have. Bill
C-23 will extend to same sex partners the same benefits and
obligations that common law opposite sex partners have.
In conclusion, our proposed bill affirms parliament's primary
responsibility for social policy. It provides a responsible,
balanced and legally sound framework within which to address
recent court decisions and to ensure that same sex couples
receive fair and equal treatment under the law.
I will vote today on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of
my family, my husband and my three children, in favour of this
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
our colleague for her excellent speech, which indicates
considerable open-mindedness. I greatly appreciated her
reference to the conversation with her children. This is the
kind of thing that needs to be discussed very openly.
Before going into the amendments proposed by the Canadian
Alliance in detail, I would like to point out that it is the
41st birthday of our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I am
sure I can speak for us all in wishing him a happy birthday.
What we are being offered today, in discussing Bill C-23 and the
amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance is, of course, the
opportunity to discuss a fundamental value.
A little later today, at 6.30 p.m., members will be standing up
to vote. I know that in a parliament, and this is true for all
those who believe in democracy, it is normal to accept a
diversity of views. People are not obliged in any way to think
the same way on everything. That is something I have long
accepted, in fact ever since my first day in caucus.
With all due respect for the diversity of points of view to be
expressed, however, I would like to argue that the bill we have
before us is, first and foremost, one that concerns democracy.
1625
Why does it concern democracy? Democracy has been the subject
of discussions for 300 years. I believe that there is one
inherent value, something that is rather intimately related to
it. It is the conviction that all individuals are equal in the
eyes of the law. This is what we are taught in law and in
political science.
When we are involved on the local level with various community
councils, on the boards of various institutions, we constantly
hear that if there is one supreme authority, the state or the
supreme court, it is because everyone must be treated equally,
everyone must enjoy equality of treatment. This is so true that
it is even part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
in section 15, as well as of the Quebec charter of human rights.
What is it that we are being asked today to do as legislators?
First, we are being asked to acknowledge that there are
common law relationships.
In our society there are people who, for the past 20 or 25
years, have felt the need to enter into relations of solidarity,
relationships—I will come back to this—that are conjugal but
not marriage.
This is a significant fact in Quebec, because the province in
Canada with the highest rate of cohabitation is Quebec. The
courts pointed out that common law relationships in which
individuals deliberately and wittingly choose to enjoy mutual
benefit without marrying must be treated equally.
This is why I have a hard time following my colleagues in the
Canadian Alliance, because the bill before us does not concern
marriage, but rather the antithesis of marriage. It concerns
those who have chosen to live in a common law relationship.
In fact, I would not like there to be a debate on marriage
anywhere but in parliament. I do not think that it is up to the
courts to tell us what form we want marriage to take. I totally
agree with those who say that debate on these matters is the
prerogative of members of parliament. The day we debate it, I
will be the first to rise and say there is no reason to limit the
institution of marriage as such to heterosexuals, that it is
discriminatory to exclude people of the homosexual persuasion
from the institution of marriage.
However, the time for that has not yet come.
The bill before us concerns the equal treatment of all people
and the recognition of common law couples, whether homosexual or
heterosexual.
It is most interesting that lawmakers—and here I will end my
digression on marriage—did not feel the need to define marriage.
The courts therefore gave a common law definition and the
Minister of Justice, through the parliamentary secretary,
presented the committee with a conventional definition of
marriage, i.e. of a man and a woman.
I do not think it is necessary to further expound on the merits of
the strategy. For the purposes of the
debate, let us be clear that all those who will be voting this
evening at report stage and tomorrow at third reading need to
know that the conventional definition of marriage is not being
challenged and is not under threat.
This is a given that we must keep in mind.
I hasten to add that contrary to what some have suggested,
adoption is very obviously not what this bill is all about.
Constitutionally, adoption is excluded from this debate because
it is a provincial jurisdiction and comes under the civil code
of the Province of Quebec.
Members on this side know what an important day May 20, 1997
was.
May 20 is a lucky day in the history of the sovereignist
movement because it marks the day a few years ago when a
referendum was held, with the results we know. These results
will keep getting better, as each of us also knows.
1630
On May 20, 1999 the supreme court handed down an extremely
important and almost unanimous decision. Those at all familiar
with the supreme court are only too aware that an 8:1 ruling is
a serious ruling, one which made law and which was the
culmination of a trend in rulings toward equal treatment.
The supreme court was faced with the following case.
Two lesbians who had lived together for a number of years, and
had built up a business together, separated. This is the case
known as M v H.
One of the two applied for support under section 22 of the
Ontario family law act. Initially, this case was heard by
Ontario's divisional court and then its appeal court. The
supreme court allowed the appeal and authorized the parties to
appear before it.
This is why we have an obligation to pass this bill. Even if
the debate has to be among parliamentarians, nevertheless when
the supreme court brings down a decision it makes law and
obliges the legislator to bring its legislation into line
accordingly.
For the first time, the supreme court has said that homosexual
couples are to be treated on an equal footing with other
couples. It has also said that homosexual couples must be
recognized in the eyes of the legislator as forming common law
couples with the same recognition, the same obligations and the
same privileges.
Some MPs find this a concern, and ask if we should not go
further in recognizing what the concept of a couple implies.
I would remind hon. members that, given the jurisprudence
referred to in M v H, this is a conjugal relationship. Among
the characteristics of a conjugal relationship are: living under
the same roof, a personal and sexual relationship, exchange of
services, social activities, financial support and being seen
by society as a couple.
In closing, I wish to state that there is no reason whatsoever
why, as legislators, we cannot acknowledge that persons of
homosexual orientation who are in a conjugal relationship cannot
be considered a couple. This is what the bill is inviting us to
do, and I hope that there will be many of us here in this House
open to individual equality who will support Bill C-23 at the
report and third reading stages.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Mississauga South, Health Care.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this bill at
report stage. I regret the use of time allocation, closure and
all of the usual heavy-handed, undemocratic tactics employed by
the government, as this has been my first opportunity to attempt
to articulate the overwhelming consensus of my constituents on
this matter.
I believe it would be accurate to say that I have received more
unsolicited constituent feedback on this issue than on any other
issue in my time in this place. I find it very disturbing that
the government has become so inured to using the hammer of the
closure motion that members like myself have effectively been
unable to substantially address this bill and our constituents'
concerns.
1635
The treatment of this bill by the government, the House leader
and the cabinet reflects, more than perhaps anything else I have
experienced in this place, the growing arrogance and abuse of
parliamentary power by the government, which I honestly find
disturbing.
I would like to say on behalf of my constituents that hundreds
of working people have written to me, faxed me and e-mailed me,
as their representative, opposing Bill C-23. Notwithstanding
what members opposite say, these people are not bigots. They are
not advocates of discrimination and intolerance. They are normal
working Canadians. I know that members opposite have heard from
like-minded constituents.
Perhaps the member for Parkdale—High Park regards as intolerant
the members of her constituency who oppose the effective
diminishment of the legal recognition of marriage. I do not. I
think that her constituents and mine, who have serious heartfelt
and conscientious objections to this legislation, are tolerant
Canadians. They ought to be heard. If there is anyone
intolerant, it is those who stand in this place to castigate
Canadians who sincerely believe that there ought to be in law a
preferential option given to marriage as the cradle of the family
and the family as the cradle of human life.
I would like to register my serious dismay with the kind of
inflammatory rhetoric employed by some members of the government
and other opposition parties in characterizing as intolerant
those Canadians who, in good conscience, object to this
incredibly significant piece of legislation.
Why do Canadians raise those objections? They actually believe
that the institution of marriage is central to any civilized and
healthy society. I find it utterly remarkable that in the year
2000 members have to stand in parliament to articulate the
reasons for which marriage ought to be given a preferential
option in law. It truly is remarkable. It is a very basic
natural fact that children are born and raised in the context of
heterosexual relationships. Is that an intolerant statement?
No, it is a statement of natural fact.
It may be that non-heterosexual couples would like to have that
capacity, but nature has not so graced them. Every civilization
throughout history has recognized that the procreative capacity,
what the philosophers would call a radical capacity to procreate,
is something that is of great importance and ought to be
protected and promoted.
We can go back to the beginning of political philosophy and read
Plato's musings about taking children from families, putting them
in government run day care camps and trying to create the perfect
human being. The effort to remove children from the cradle of
the family has been the nightmarish vision of utopians throughout
history. Civilized societies, societies which understand there
is a basic ontological nature of the human person which dictates
that children of human beings are best raised in a stable
two-parent heterosexual family, know that special privileges,
special legal protections and special legal obligations must be
accorded to those who enter the very solemn legal and contractual
obligation of marriage.
What Bill C-23 seeks to do is to take that very solemn legal
privilege and obligation and turn it on its head, essentially
saying that any two people who have the desire to live together
in a conjugal relationship will, for all intents and purposes, be
given precisely the same advantages, rights and privileges as
married heterosexual couples without the attendant
responsibilities. In fact, the Minister of Justice even admitted
at committee that the only place where marriage is really an
operative term in federal legislation, which would not apply to
the same sex beneficiaries contemplated in Bill C-23, is in the
Divorce Act.
1640
What we are doing is taking these unique legal privileges, this
preferential option for the family, and giving that to anyone,
regardless of their capacity or lack thereof to procreate
children and raise the next generation. In so doing, we are
diminishing the distinctive legal, cultural and social value of
the marital relationship, but we continue, and quite
appropriately, to impose legal obligations on married couples
through the Divorce Act, obligations which do not adhere to the
same sex couples who will receive these marital benefits under
the bill. It seems to me that this is a radical piece of
legislation which undermines an institution central to any
civilized society.
The Minister of Justice, under the enormous pressure of public
opinion, even from her own caucus, decided that something had to
be done to cloak this bill in the appearance of being somehow
defensive of the institution of marriage, because, after all, due
to the diligent work of my colleague from Calgary Centre, the
House passed a motion on June 8 of last year declaring that the
government should take “all necessary steps” to preserve the
definition of marriage as “the union of one man and one woman to
the exclusion of all others”. That shocking, intolerant,
discriminatory motion passed by a vote of 216 to 55, with the
entire federal cabinet voting in favour.
The Minister of Justice was required by political pressure, by
all those millions of intolerant, bigoted Canadians that we keep
hearing about from some members of the government, to do
something to protect the institution of marriage. Therefore, she
had her officials in the Department of Justice, which we all know
is a haven of defence of the natural family, insert in the
preamble to the bill some meaningless, rhetorical reference to
the definition of marriage.
At committee it has been absolutely evident that the preambular
definition of marriage included in this enormous, sweeping
omnibus bill has effectively no meaning in law. It will not be
used as a reference by the courts. It will not apply as a
definition in the various statutes amended by this bill. It is a
meaningless, token gesture that the Minister of Justice is giving
to some of her backbenchers, who can then go back to their
constituents and disingenuously claim that they stood in the
House and voted for the traditional definition of marriage.
I put those members who intend to use that Trojan horse on
notice that we will not allow them to mislead their constituents
should they intend to do so at the next election. We will remind
their constituents who stood in the House, took the
responsibility and defended with their vote the basic institution
of civil society, marriage, that little platoon of society to
which Edmund Burke referred, upon which our culture depends.
I implore my colleagues opposite, do not let this be a whipped
vote. Do not let it be a partisan vote. Let it be a vote of
representation of our constituents, a vote that speaks for the
value of marriage and family in our society. Do not be cowed by
the voices of intolerance. Vote for the amendments to define
marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, normally I
am happy to enter a debate, but I think this is a difficult one.
One of the things with which I have had difficulty as a member
of parliament is the issue of morality and the fact that from
time to time we are called on as representatives to attempt to
prejudge, understand and reconcile the different moralities that
exist within the general polity.
I say this not only to those in my own riding, but also to some
in other ridings which possibly have an even higher threshold of
concern about this legislation.
1645
The member who spoke previously talked about the hundreds of
letters he is receiving. I too have received some and petitions
as well.
Because of my own concern about this issue and having to in a
sense prejudge morality, I can well remember the last parliament
when we had a debate over the human rights amendments and it was
a somewhat similar debate. I commissioned an official poll in my
riding. Even though I received hundreds of letters opposed to
the human rights amendments, I discovered that the vast majority
of my riding was in favour of them. I fear we are doing the same
thing here. As a matter of fact, I have had less response on this
legislation than I did on the original human rights amendments.
I stand in my place today to support the legislation. Why do we
support the legislation? Behind some of the arguments today is
the issue between collective and individual rights. We have
defined our country as a nation in the world which respects
individual rights. One of the things we can be proud of as a
nation as we go forth in the 21st century is that we support,
respect and try to enrich individual rights.
This issue comes down to a question of discrimination. Do we in
fact believe that certain groups in our society are being
discriminated against simply because of some of the relationships
they choose to enter into? My background is as an accountant so I
focus on the Income Tax Act. It tells me that with these
amendments a same sex couple in a dependency relationship will be
able to claim the other one as a full dependant. I ask myself,
if that was not the case, are they discriminated against? The
answer is yes, they are discriminated against and are treated
differently.
Some of those in the opposition and others who oppose the
legislation would tell me they believe that is appropriate. In
other words, there is some kind of appropriateness to some forms
of discrimination. Once we start making exceptions to the rules
of a body of rights in a country, we are going down a very
slippery slope in which there are only rights for certain people
and rights for others. That gets me back to my original
discussion of collective and individual rights.
What is really bothering some people behind this legislation is
the ability to impose their morality on society generally. In
other words, things seem to be changing. This is the way things
were. One of the members spoke about her family. I have been
married well over 30 years and have a grown family myself similar
to what she was saying. I discussed this matter with them and
they thought this whole issue was a bit of nonsense and that we
were a bunch of old fogeys in the way we visualize society
because society has fundamentally changed in front of us. I know
my mother would be giving me heck for my opinion on this
legislation but I think people's attitudes and views change over
time.
For those people in my riding who believe very strongly about
this legislation and think it is bad legislation, I can only
simply say that I have tried to reconcile their views with what I
believe to be the majority of the people in my riding. I have
come to the conclusion that we still believe in a fundamental
principle and that is that the majority rules. In spite of what
some of the members in the opposition would have us believe, I
believe that the majority of Canadians in fact support this
legislation.
Getting back to the definition of marriage, this legislation
does not really deal with the institution of marriage. It is the
provincial jurisdictions that deal with the institution of
marriage.
1650
Having said that, we have provided a definition within the
preamble. I believe that many in the community who would oppose
this legislation are happy that at least there has been some
recognition of what we believe to be a marriage as being the
union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Getting back to the issue of discrimination, one of the things
that bothered me about the legislation, because we are extending
benefits and rights to a larger group of people than possibly now
enjoy them, is that the question invariably comes up as to the
form of discrimination. Are there other people in our society
who are being discriminated against?
I talked about the dependency relationship under the Income Tax
Act. Many people similarly brought up the issue of a daughter
who is supporting her sick mother and should she also not have
the right to claim her as a dependant. Fundamentally I think we
all agree that is true. We agree that we should be extending
this definition. It once again goes back to the theme of my
speech. We must not provide for any discrimination in our
system. In fact we must find ways to do away with as much
discrimination as we can.
We can talk as much as we want about this utopian society, but
the reality is we are curtailed somewhat by affordability. That
does not mean the government is not concerned about that issue. I
am very heartened to discover that the Minister of Justice and
others have commissioned a study to look into the ability to
expand this definition to include other people who may well be
discriminated against. That is appropriate, but obviously to go
down that road today to include a broader definition of
discrimination would be very costly.
When I explain that to those in my constituency who are
concerned about that, I explain to them that under our current
laws a broader definition of discrimination would be
prohibitively costly. The impact on private pension plans and
others would be that some benefits now being received by some
people in my constituency would actually go down to provide for
this enhanced vision.
I suspect that in a future parliament, parliamentarians will be
discussing expanding the definition to allow other forms of
deductibility of obligations and rights. There is no question
that as we go down the road our society is aging. I am very
concerned about families who are trying to support themselves and
possibly invalid members of the family and need some help from
our taxation system.
I do not believe it is appropriate to continue to be silent on
those issues. We will continue to debate them. As we prosper in
the future, the definition of dependency relationships will
increase to include those people but as of today we are going
with this one measure.
It has taken us a long time to have a charter of rights and
freedoms. As a government it has taken us a number of years to
even invoke it, which is where we are being led to today. The
courts are saying that we have not been living up to the terms of
the charter and it is time that we did. That is fair and
justified. To say otherwise means that what we really want to do
is to amend the charter of rights and freedoms and take away
individual rights and liberties, a famous hallmark of this
country.
In conclusion, I am very supportive of this legislation. I
certainly respect the views of others who are opposed to it.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the special indulgence of the House. I was in
my office working with the television on the parliamentary
channel in the background. When debate on the Group No. 1
motions collapsed, I just did not make it all the way from the
Confederation building to here in time.
1655
Since we are talking about tolerating and forgiving each other's
little minor foibles today, I wonder whether I could ask for
unanimous consent that Motions Nos. 14 and 91 which are on the
notice paper in my name also be deemed moved and seconded and
thus included in Group No. 2, pursuant to the Speaker's ruling.
I ask for unanimous consent for that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member be permitted to move these motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I regret that because I think
my amendments would have certainly added value to what we are
talking about in today's debate.
It is interesting that we have this conflict in the discussion
of whether or not the term of marriage is being discussed here.
First the Minister of Justice adamantly denied it. She said this
bill had nothing to do with marriage, and subsequent to that she
put forward an amendment that in fact did talk about marriage.
Furthermore almost every one of the changes that is being
proposed by Bill C-23 in the 68 different statutes has to do with
a marriage relationship, a family.
There is one amendment I really wish could be on the Order Paper
to actually have members vote on because I think it would be
consistent with previous decisions made in the House. We should
not be using the back door with this bill to redefine marriage
and family in all of these different statutes. I urge members to
think seriously about that.
I do not want to chastise my fellow parliamentarians for denying
me consent. I will gladly concede that in a foot race I would lose
to almost everyone here. That is part of my excuse for not
getting here in 2.8 milliseconds all the way from the
Confederation Building when the debate collapsed.
I simply say that we ought not to be doing things that cannot
take the heat of debate. We should not be doing things that
cannot bear the support of the public.
The member who spoke previously said that in a poll he had
conducted the majority of the people were in favour of this bill.
Of course we do not have questions and comments at this point
but I would like to ask him exactly what question he asked.
Being a mathematician and being involved somewhat in statistical
work I know this much about polling, that the way one words the
question can almost certainly determine the outcome. If one were
to say should we discriminate against people who like each other,
probably 99% of Canadians would say no they do not think we
should discriminate against people who like each other. But the
question should we support and promote a redefinition of marriage
and of family, and look at the ramifications of that is not being
asked. That is not being done here in terms of the feedback we
are getting.
When people stop and actually see what is happening in this bill
universally they have serious questions about it and so should
we. I urge all members to think very carefully. The words that we
keep hearing are, let us not discriminate against anyone, let us
treat everyone equally and fairly. One can hardly argue with
those concepts. However we should ask the question, if we pass
this bill and make all of those changes in the 68 different acts,
who then are we discriminating against? It is a very important
question. The inclusion of the term “conjugal relationship”
throws open huge questions.
I submit that in passing the bill we will actually be broadening
the group of people against which we are discriminating. This is
a very intolerant bill in the sense that it grants benefits only
to those who, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are in a
conjugal relationship.
That means that everyone who is not in that group is being
discriminated against.
1700
How will it be determined? It has already been mentioned
several times in the House today by several of my colleagues that
two of the ministers on the front bench are in disagreement over
this. One of the ministers says “Yes, this involves a sexual
relationship”. The other one says “No, it does not”. If it
does not, what exactly is the definition of a couple who will
qualify for these benefits? How do we determine who will be
eligible? The definition simply is not there and there is
confusion.
I venture to guess that if we were to ask 300 members of the
House, excluding the Speaker, we would probably get, as we would
with 300 economists, 300 different answers. Parliament is in
error if we pass a law asking future courts and judges to rule
without giving them a clear definition of what we are talking
about.
One couple may say “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship. We
have sex in one form or another two times a week”. They would
qualify. Another couple might say “We never have sex. We do
not engage in sexual activity”. Would they qualify if they had
lived together for five, eight or twenty years but had never
engaged in sexual activity? Does that really, in the dictionary
definition, indicate that is a conjugal relationship?
Furthermore, I think we discriminate against those who would be
truthful. When it comes to receiving grants, benefits and
things, there are invariably some people who are willing to be a
little less than honest about it. The purpose of our laws and
courts is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and, in
essence, people are forced to be honest. If we have several
different couples in different relationships and some of them say
“No, we are really not in a conjugal relationship but we could
get some benefits if we said we were” and if they do not have a
morality that prevents them from being untruthful, they would
simply declare “Yes, we are in a conjugal relationship” and
they would be eligible.
Parliament has done absolutely no study to my satisfaction that
has shown any indication of the cost of this, because it is
totally unknown. Starting out with a definition of a conjugal
relationship being eligible for benefits where that definition is
missing means we might have two people in Canada or we might have
two million who will come forward to claim these benefits and
rights that they have.
There is another huge conundrum here. We are putting homosexual
people into the same classification as heterosexual common law
couples. We know there are certain laws that cover common law
relationships. If I am not mistaken, if a man and woman have
been living together in a common law relationship for three years
they are deemed to be basically equivalent to married and if they
split up there is a division of assets and things like that.
What happens if we have one of these couples in this so-called
conjugal relationship where after three, four or five years they
break up and then one of them says “I would like to have half of
the assets” and they go to court to try to solve this? The one
who has the assets may say “No, we were never in a conjugal
relationship”, while the one who wants the assets may say “Yes,
we were”.
How will the courts ever unravel that one? It is a conundrum.
Why we, as parliamentarians, would have such an ill-advised piece
of legislation, in which we ask the courts to rule on things that
basically have no definition, is a mystery to me?
1705
I urge members to vote in favour of my amendments which are not
on the table. Maybe the members have reconsidered and would like
to have my amendments at least in the debate. They can vote
against them if they wish. I ask for unanimous consent once
more.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
hon. member's motions be put to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say clearly and unequivocally
at the beginning of my remarks that I fully support Bill C-23. I
say that not only as a citizen and as a parliamentarian, but also
as a father of five children, a grandfather of four and as a man
who has been married a long time. I was first married in 1960.
I think I know a bit about marriage and I might even know
something about the institution of marriage. I can say
unequivocally that I do not feel threatened by Bill C-23. I do
not think for a moment that the institution of marriage is
threatened by this bill.
When I listened to the anti-diluvium reformers across the way, I
find it difficult to understand what I suppose they would
construe as their reasoning. Somehow they believe that if we
give homosexual couples in a common law relationship the same
benefits and the same obligations as society has already given to
opposite sex couples in common law relationships, that somehow
threatens the institution of marriage. Madam Speaker, if you
could square that circle for me, I would appreciate it.
If I enjoy a privilege or a right and if that is extended to
someone else living in a committed common law relationship,
regardless of whether they are opposite sex or same sex, how that
threatens me, my marriage or the institution of marriage is
beyond me. I guess it might be called reform party reasoning,
flawed as it is.
Let me say one more thing about illiterate reform theology.
Homosexuality does not spread like the flu. It is not a
communicable disease. It does not spread around like that. The
reformers should not worry, if Bill C-23 passes, which it will,
that all kinds of red blooded, heterosexual Canadians will be
changing their sexual practices tomorrow or dropping their
heterosexual orientation. They will continue being heterosexuals
as I am sure homosexuals will continue being homosexuals. I want
to assure the illiterates across the way that it does not spread
like the flu.
I want to mention a few other things because I think they are
relevant to the debate. It is very relevant to cite a poll that
was conducted by Angus Reid in October 1998 because it provides a
very good indication of the thinking of Canadians with regard to
some of the issues under discussion.
According to that survey, 84% of Canadians agreed that gay and
lesbian individuals should be protected from discrimination. That
very same poll showed that 67% agreed that same sex couples
should have the same legal rights and obligations—reformers
never mention the word obligation—as a man and a woman living
together as a common law couple.
1710
I am not at all surprised by these polling results. They are
merely further evidence that fairness and equity are strongly
held beliefs among Canadians and that these beliefs can exist
alongside our deeply rooted respect for the institution of
matrimony as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of
all others.
I believe to my core that there is no contradiction at all
between wanting to be fair to same sex couples and supporting
marriage. Moreover, if we ask ourselves why Canadians exhibit
this sense of fairness with respect to equal treatment for same
sex couples, the answer is obvious, at least it is to me.
I suspect that most Canadians, indeed most members of the House,
know people in unmarried relationships of the opposite sex and of
the same sex. They are among our friends and relatives and often
the partnerships are long term and committed ones.
On a personal level, in our own lives and experiences, when we
think about our friends and family members who are in same sex
relationships we want to see that these people are treated with
fairness and dignity.
When we can actually put faces on the abstract notion of same
sex partners, we can begin to see the daily realities involved
and to realize the human side of this issue. This is the reason
why the majority of Canadians support equal treatment under the
law for same sex couples.
The provinces have announced their intention to review their
laws. It is why the federal government and most provinces and
territories have now extended benefits to their own employees who
are in same sex relationships. Beyond the public service, the
three provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have
taken measures to extend benefits and obligations to same sex
couples.
Over 200 private sector employers have already extended
work-related benefits, such as dental care and pension rights, to
the same sex partners of their employees, as have many
municipalities, hospitals and community and social service
institutions right across the country.
I am fully aware that some will disagree with the arguments that
I have made. They will say that it is the courts who have
decided on equality for same sex couples. Let me say that the
courts have merely been responding to laws, including the charter
of rights and freedoms, that have been written and passed by us,
by Canadians' democratically elected representatives.
The bill before us is yet one more of these initiatives by a
democratically elected government. It would bring federal
legislation into conformity with the charter. Its wording and
definitions have have been examined to ensure charter
consistency. Bill C-23 will ensure that our laws do not unfairly
discriminate between common law opposite sex and same sex
relationships.
I do not think I have to remind parliamentarians that there was
a time in Canada when women were not considered persons before
the law. In fact, there was a time when Canadian women were not
allowed to vote and there was a big fight then. The social
Conservatives of that period were against extending the franchise
to women. I suspect it is the same group of people with the same
mentality who are opposed to fairness and equality for gays and
lesbians today. There was also a time when aboriginal people
could not vote.
One of the positive benefits of the bill before us is that it
removes from our federal laws the few remaining distinctions
among children based on references to illegitimacy.
We will continue this fight to bring greater equality and
fairness to more and more Canadians. This kind of fight has been
going on for decades and in fact centuries.
1715
Bill C-23 is about equality in benefits and obligations. First
let us examine the benefits provided in the legislation. This
aspect has been the focus for some members opposite who have
described benefits for same sex couples in hysterical and even
vulgar terms.
What benefits are included in the bill? The fact is that most
of the statutes in the bill dealing with benefits relate to
pensions. We believe that hard working Canadians should be able
to provide for and indeed be encouraged to provide for their
common law partners, whether opposite sex or same sex.
The bill has been debated for a good long time. Yes, we have
had time allocation, but there is a point where we have to bring
the debate to an end. It has been debated in other legislatures.
It has been debated in homes. I think people have made up their
minds. An overwhelming majority of Canadians are in favour of
Bill C-23 and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, things are looking up a bit in this place. I could see
it coming. In 1993 the Liberals had about a quarter of the
section over here in addition to that whole side. In 1997 that
was reduced significantly. There are a lot less Liberals. As
long as their mentality and their way of thinking continue down
that path, I cannot wait until the next election because they
will be toast.
Canadian people are tired of the social engineering that is
taking place in the House of Commons, the constant social
engineering that has been in place since 1993 when the good old
Liberals came back into power, something that has been the
history of their party.
It always leads to their downfall. It only takes time. People
finally wise up and realize the social engineering that has
continued through their years of governance will never end until
we get the right people in government who truly believe in
democracy, who truly believe in the democratic voice of the
common people throughout the land: the taxpayer, the guy and the
gal who pack their lunches, work hard every day and pay taxes.
One of these days the country will wake up and be quite pleased
because the people of the land will be the ones who will make a
decision about what kind of society they want to live in instead
of the governing body of this place.
The Liberals do not respect free votes or expect members of
their caucus to represent their ridings because that is what they
must do. They do not allow that. Is that democracy? The whip
cracks and that is the way it will be. However one day society
as a whole will have a voice in making a decision as to what kind
of society we want to live in.
As for me, I choose the collective voice of the people over what
that should be. I do not choose the voice of the government
because it does not believe in the consultation process. Even
though the Liberals talk it, they do not believe in it. They do
not believe in the petition process.
My desk is full of responses to petitions. We let them collect
and then we take them back to our offices, but the responses are
simple. The petition is laid out on the table. The government
takes it and it responds. Through all the gobbledegook that is
in the long description of what took place in petition it is
simply saying one sentence. It should reduce the response to one
page, save taxpayers some money and save paper. The sentence
should be simply: “Sorry, folks. We are the government. We
know best”.
There were 2.5 million signatures tabled in the House of Commons
by Priscilla de Villiers the first year I got here. It did not
even sink in that 2.5 million people were asking for some very
serious changes to the justice system.
From the time of those tablings to today millions of more
signatures have been tabled asking that something be done with
young offenders, with the parole system and with the prison
system to help protect society more.
1720
They are tired of looking over their shoulders. They want to
look to the future. Why should they be afraid of being in a
school yard? They want to walk down the streets in city of
Toronto or in the city of Calgary without fear. They kept
tabling petitions, and what do they get from the Minister of
Justice after all that time? Bill C-23.
That will not make a lot of petitioners happy. What a wonderful
listening government: millions and millions of signatures mean
nothing, but a little court decision regarding a situation will
make the law. The government will listen more and more as the
supreme court and other courts come out with rulings so it can
make some more wise decisions based on the courts.
Never mind society. It wants to base it on the courts. The
people of Canada are tired of the courts deciding what kind of
society they want to live in. They are certainly tired of this
place deciding what kind of society they should live in. They
truly want a voice.
The Liberals should up the good work because after the next
election they will be toast. They are not listening to the
people of the land. They will have a voice. There will be a day
that they take control of this place, take it back from the
arrogance and the obnoxious methods being used to run their lives
in a social engineering fashion. I can hardly wait for that day.
I sure hope I live long enough to see it. I promise that day
will happen.
The Liberals continually shut down debate in this place. Closure
has been used 69 times now or 169 times. It does not matter.
They just do it.
An hon. member: It is called a gag law.
Mr. Myron Thompson: It is called a gag law. It is called
for heaven's sake, let us not get any more information about it.
They think they are doing the right thing. They would not dare
want the people to find out the real truth. It is really sad.
We are supposed to look at everything optimistically. I am
looking at this whole affair very optimistically because it will
mean they will be gone. Praise the Lord, they will be gone and
we will get some people in here who know what in the world they
have to do to rule a good country.
Those people over there like a lot of humour. They laugh at a
lot of things. That is good. It is that kind of obnoxious
attitude that will help make them history. It will not be a very
pleasant history. It will not go down in the history books as
being anything wonderful. In my riding—
Mr. John Harvard: Is your name Bull Connor? Where are
your dogs?
Mr. Lee Morrison: Over there.
Mr. Myron Thompson: If the fellow wants to say something
he should go to his seat.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My colleague deserves the same respect as anybody else
when speaking. I do not expect to see the Liberal on the other
side standing and heckling like he is. Would you ask these
people to be respectful enough to listen to him.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I ask all hon.
members to listen to what our colleagues have to say. I am
serious. Let us keep it down a little.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, it really does not
bother me. It just shows their true colours. Let them carry on.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When you call upon all members to pay attention to what my
colleague from the Canadian Alliance is saying, this bothers me
somewhat because I was quietly paying close attention. The one
stirring things up is the hon. member across the way, who has
been doing so for some time. The Chair should intervene.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe we are getting
into debate here. The hon. member for Wild Rose.
1725
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon.
colleague from the Bloc. As I said, they should carry on. It
shows their true colours. People will not accept this as being
brilliant but that is okay because, as I said, another election
and they will be toast.
The time has come when the government needs to decide whether it
will truly allow the people of the land to help make some
decisions with regard to what kind of society we have. It is
time to do that.
Do the Liberals believe for one moment that the people of the
land are happy the decision in British Columbia regarding child
pornography is still sitting before the supreme court all this
time? They were saying not to worry, not to worry. That is not
the kind of government people want. It was probably the most
obnoxious decision in the face of society that has happened in
this land for ages, that child pornography should be allowed to
that extent.
What they want from people in this place including me is a
little action to starting representing what the people of Canada
want for a society. When will the Liberals start doing it?
Liberal governments will never do it. I ask folks out there to
get ride of them.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I do not know how I get so lucky to follow the hon.
member for Wild Rose. It just must be my day. Actually the
member puts forward very valid points and some interesting
questions, must of which have to do with Bill C-23, human rights,
equal rights, the way we see differences in society and the way
we see differences among people.
I was intrigued and entertained by the comments just made about
what kind of society we want. That member and his party have
stood in this place for the three years I have been here and
continually gone on about what kind of society they want. They
want a society where the views of Charlton Heston are more
important than the views of the average citizen. They say that.
They want a society that does not have any laws to deal with gun
control and that believes in the American constitution which says
one has a right to bear arms and a right to defend oneself with
those arms.
That is not Canadian society by any stretch of the imagination,
but it is certainly their society and their vision. They believe
in a society that would discriminate against individuals because
of their sexual preference. Let us deal with that just for a
second.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Hector wants to do that speech in his
riding.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I did not heckle the member. It was
not me. It was somebody else. He should settle down. The hon.
member said he would like to live long enough to see change. I
do not know if he is going to see change, but I would like him to
live too. He should take it easy, lower the temperature, take a
Valium.
Let us talk about Bill C-23. I do not care if the courts make
the decision or if parliament is making it, but fundamentally the
issue is whether we are prepared as Canadians to have a society
in which we will say to people who are gay that they cannot have
access to the dental plans of their partners in their places of
employment, that they cannot share in some form of survivor
benefits having lived in a relationship with someone for a number
of years, or that because they are gay they are not entitled to
those basic rights in the workplace.
I had some concerns about the word conjugal in the bill. That
word was defined for me by members of the Mississauga Gospel
Temple. By their name alone we can tell they are Christians and
their belief in the Bible is very strong. They are very good
people. Reverend Horton in a letter pointed out to me that the
word conjugal in the dictionary refers specifically to the act of
sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in a married state.
1730
I said “Just a minute. If we are using the word conjugal, how
can we say that this bill does not in some way reference
marriage? I think it does”.
I went to the minister, as had others, and said that we needed
to address it. For us simply to continue to say that this is not
about marriage in some way, or that it could not be interpreted
in some way by a lawyer somewhere down the road, is unrealistic.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: We will see how you vote on the
amendments.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I will be voting in favour of the
bill, let me tell the member that.
The minister responded by putting in the bill the definition of
marriage, which to me was acceptable. I have shared that
information with my constituents at the Mississauga Gospel Temple
and to everyone else who has written with concerns.
What I found interesting was that the definition, which clearly
is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,
has caused some concern in the gay community. They have called
and said that somehow we have gutted the bill.
I have a message regarding that. If they are saying that and
they are partners in gay or lesbian relationships, then what they
are really telling me is that they want, perhaps through a hidden
agenda, to move toward gay and lesbian marriages being defined in
the same way as heterosexual marriages. I do not support that.
I have said that before. Members opposite want to bring up some
comments I made in the provincial legislature as an MPP. I am
quite prepared to defend them because that bill did not clearly
define marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the
exclusion of all others.
While I may be prepared to draw my line in the sand which says
that marriage is the union of a man a woman to the exclusion of
all others, I have introduced a private member's bill which would
amend the Marriage Act and amend the Interpretation Act to lay
that out clearly.
I am not doing that to be mean-spirited to the gay and lesbian
community. I believe they are entitled to the rights outlined in
Bill C-23 and to the obligations outlined in Bill C-23.
I have said this before. I do not consider it to be homophobic.
I just understand, have been raised to believe, and my
constituents in the majority believe, that marriage by definition
is between a man and a woman. That is based very much on
procreation, on children and on families. I understand that to
be the case.
Having said that, if two same sex people get together in a
union, draw up a contract, do whatever they want and live their
lives loving one another, I can assure you that does not
jeopardize my marriage of 31 years. I am the only one who does
that, and I do that on a regular basis, as my wife would say.
The fact that two women love one another, are in a relationship
and live together has no impact on my relationship with my wife,
nor should it for anyone. The reality is that we take the issue
and decide what kind of society we want.
Let me use an example. Suppose there were two people working on
the assembly line at General Motors. One of them was
heterosexual with a wife at home. The other was gay with a
partner at home. Are we prepared as a society to say that the
heterosexual person should receive full access to General Motors'
company benefits, pension survivor benefits and dental plan for
his partner at home, but that the person making the same dollar,
working the same hours and taking the same risks should not have
access to those same benefits? Is that the kind of society we
want? I do not think so.
The Canadian people understand the differences between the
former Reform Party, or the C-C-R-A-P, or the UA, or the CA, or
whatever it is, and the government. I think it is wonderful that
it is having a leadership debate. We will hear the vision for
Canada and the world according to Stockwell Day and according to
the present leader of that party.
I cannot wait to hear the debate. We will hear “praise the
Lord” all across this great land. They will be standing and
saying that if people come to their bosom they will make those
people more free and more democratic. It is nonsense. They can
stump it and thump it any which way, but the vision in which
Canadians believe is not one of the extreme right. It is not one
of the extreme religious right. It is the belief that we all
have the ability and the freedom to worship in whatever form we
want or not to worship in whatever form we want.
1735
Nobody can tell Canadians that they must believe in certain
philosophies. That is absolute nonsense. The Canadian people
are saying that we will not discriminate. It is as simple as
that.
Where do we want to go? Do we want to take away a woman's right
to choose what to do with her body? I think they do. I think
that is part of their philosophy. That is not the vision of this
party. Frankly, that is not the vision of the majority of
Canadians.
Do we want to have boot camps? I know they believe in that.
They believe in the fist. They believe that a block of wood on
the rear end of a kid will cure him. That is their vision. That
is not our vision and that is not the vision of most Canadians.
Fundamentally, they believe in discriminating for whatever
reasons they choose. That is not our vision and that is not the
vision of the vast majority of Canadians.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, it is funny to hear the word extreme in this
place. I think I just heard a speech on that.
I remind the government of some of the fatal errors that I think
once again it is creating with Bill C-23. One of those fatal
errors is the omnibus nature of the bill. The bill touches some
68 pieces of legislation. In doing so it will affect some
longstanding and important pieces of legislation in the country,
such as the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Act, the Old Age Security Act,
the Bank Act, the Income Tax Act and so on.
We hear a lot of rhetoric from members on the other side, but I
have seen these omnibus bills go through the House before and we
in the opposition are obligated to point out some of the
problems.
One of the problems with an omnibus bill is that it ends up
being left to the courts to resolve. Therein will be the problem
with this bill. I want to be on record as stating that, because
a lot of relatively innocent Canadians looking for some fairness
in our society will end up giving more and more money to lawyers
and going bankrupt themselves just by getting caught up in the
web of the legal industry. That is bad.
There are some pretty experienced ministers on the other side
and I do not understand why they would go along with this sort of
thing.
There was a fair bit of talk about homosexuality. That is not
only what this bill is about. This bill is about leaving people
out. It is about leaving people like my mother out if she
chooses to live with her sister. It is about leaving elderly
gentlemen out.
An hon. member: Like me.
Mr. Randy White: Like my colleague from Swift Current.
It is about exclusion, not necessarily inclusion. Members
opposite have to remember that. This is not about homosexuality.
It is about an omnibus bill that excludes some people. These
people, by virtue of exclusion, will be required at some point to
go into the courtrooms once again and pay the enormous fees that
lawyers charge to prove their case for equality.
That is sad. This could all be headed off by the government
saying today “Let's clarify this. Let's include people. Let's
make this fair”. But it is not going to do that. In fact, it
is leaving such a bill up to terminology like “conjugal
relationship”.
1740
I mentioned in the House several weeks ago that I had sat down
with four young fellows in another riding. I happen to know
them. We went through some of the issues involved in Bill C-23.
I asked them if they would be involved in these benefits. They
said, sure, they were all in conjugal relationships, and they
were laughing and giggling and bumping each other. I asked what
a conjugal relationship was to them, and they laughed and said
“us guys” and that sort of thing.
I knew all four of them and I knew they were not homosexual.
They said that I could call them anything I wanted, but if they
could take advantage through this bill of the Income Tax Act, the
Pension Act, the Insolvency Act and the Bank Act they would do
it. Why? Because whatever a conjugal relationship is, it cannot
be proven that one is in such a relationship.
I do not know how many times people on this side of the House
have to say “Clean up your act”, but these are loose ends, and
serious loose ends. It appears to me that the government is
simply going down the road trying to collect votes from a certain
group in our society such that it is willing to change all of
these pieces of legislation.
That is power gone to its worst, in my opinion. This majority
government is in its second successive term and the government
seems to feel that it might get a third successive majority
government. Whether that happens we will see. However, the
government thinks it can bring in such omnibus bills which affect
our whole society and get away with it.
When the Liberals leave office another government will be left
trying to figure out the mess. It will acquiesce. It is such a
mess and it will be left to the courts. As one who spends a
great deal of time following court cases, I know that leaving
these things to the courts is a sad mistake.
One only has to look at the child pornography issue which has
been left to the courts. Can you believe it? Time and time
again we look at the mess of drugs in our society. That issue
has been left to the courts. People who have peddled hard core
drugs are walking away from the courts just because it is money
and not common sense to common people.
I do not know what motivates a government to do such a thing,
but I do know that because it is a majority government it will
get its way, unless somebody on the other side has the courage to
take it away. We will see what happens a little later when the
voting starts.
The other thing a majority government such as this has failed to
do is to go out into the country and ask people what they think.
A member just a few minutes ago said the “majority of
Canadians”. That is very interesting because nobody from the
government was in my riding and there are about 160,000 people
who live in it. Are we excluded from this group called a
“majority of Canadians”? Who did the government talk to? Lobby
groups? Liberal associations? If I asked my colleagues, I do
not think any of them would say that the Liberals were in their
ridings asking questions about this bill.
When a member across the way says that the majority of Canadians
believes in this, that is hogwash.
It is not accurate. At least he cannot prove it is accurate. He
certainly has not talked to the people in my riding nor in many
other ridings in the country.
1745
The bill is called the modernization of benefits and obligations
act. I think, because we are trying to include one certain group
within our society, to call it a modernization is a misnomer. I
would tend to call it a specialization act because it is an act
that is directed at special groups, subsets of our society. If
this were truly a modernization act, it would include not
exclude a lot of other people.
The more I come to the House of Commons, the more I see
legislation like this, the more I watch a majority government
stand up, one, two, three, as they will tonight, and the more
this is thrust upon us, as it has certainly been thrust upon my
riding, the more disappointed I am in the process of government
itself.
This is a statement from the Liberal Government of Canada saying
“You will take this modernization of benefits bill and you will
like it because there is not a damn thing you can do about it. We
have a majority”.
In the final analysis I guess the only thing we can do when such
bad business takes place in the House of Commons is to remember
it at the time of an election and get a government in that
considers all people not just some, and one that modernizes and
does not specialize.
I am against this bill for the reasons I have stated. I am
extremely disappointed in a government that feels the majority of
Canadians buy into it as well.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this report stage debate.
I must say that if I were to believe everything that was being
said about this bill, I would probably want to vote against it
myself.
I heard reports today that it has something to do with adoption.
It has nothing to do with adoption. Only the provinces can
legislate with respect to adoption. Why would anyone in the
House want to suggest to their constituents that it has something
to do with adoption?
I have also heard today that this has something to do with the
division of assets. Why would the House have anything to do with
division of assets? That is clearly a provincial matter under
our constitution. We could not legislate with respect to
division of assets even if we wanted to. However, members
opposite in the House today have spoken about division of assets.
What a lot of nonsense.
The rhetorical question has been asked by one of the members
opposite: What kind of society will we have? Just having
listened to a number of speeches here this afternoon, if we
follow the logic opposite, what we would have is the wrath of the
majority against the minority. If we follow their line of
reasoning, not only would the majority rise up against the
minority but the majority could in fact rise up against
aboriginal treaties, which are also part of our constitution.
However, I dare say I could easily find a majority of Canadians
who would prefer to eliminate treaties from being part of our
constitution.
Let us look at where this law came from. This law came into
effect because of a decision by the supreme court which said that
this was the right, fair and equitable thing to do,
notwithstanding it deals with a minority and notwithstanding the
fact that it will not cost anyone any money for all the studies.
I have some questions for the members opposite who have spoken
so vociferously, and might I say also viciously, against the
minority covered by this bill. They may want to question their
cousin, Mr. Long, one of Premier Harris' two chief advisors, who
declared today that he will be running for the leadership of the
Canadian Alliance.
When he appears at their leadership convention they may want to
ask him why somebody who purports to lead the Canadian Alliance
would recommend that the Ontario government enact bill 5. Let us
look at Bill 5. It amends 67 provincial statutes extending
benefits under provincial law. Incidentally, Bill C-23 amends 68
statutes.
1750
Let us also ask why they are suggesting to people that we are
sneaking this through parliament, that we are rushing this
through parliament. Let us ask Mr. Tom Long at the Canadian
Alliance why the Ontario government passed it in three days. Not
only did it pass into law in three days, Ontario proclaimed it in
three days. Why or how could they purport to ascribe to a party
where one of the would-be leaders has been part of this? It took
three days in Ontario but five months before parliament and we
are accused of sneaking it through. What a lot of nonsense.
Let us look at the whole idea of debate. At Queen's Park there
were six speakers over three days. There was no vote. It passed
on consent. No one will ever know at Queen's Park where Mr. Long
resides, who opposed it or who voted in favour of it because all
three, including their philosophical cousin, Mr. Harris of the
Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, put it through.
According to the Toronto Star on October 27, 1999, Mr.
Harris let it be known that anyone opposed to the bill should be
absent from the House when it passed on consent.
What kind of society will we have? Will we have an exclusive or
inclusive society. What I am hearing today is that we will
exclude certain people who we, the majority, define as being
different. We will have a society where the majority rises up
and says to the minority “Sorry, we do not like you. You are
different. We will not in any way deal with you. We will not
recognize you and we will not give you benefits”.
It is about intolerance. We will tell people things that are
patently not true. We will tell those people that the government
is rushing this through parliament, but the record shows that it
has taken five months here and only three days at Queen's Park.
We will say that we never know who voted on it. Every vote here
is recorded. What did we see at Queen's Park? We do not know
who was for bill 5 or who was against it.
I need to ask again what kind of society they want. Do they
want a society where the majority will dictate? Will we have
polls for everything? Will we have some sort of
grassroots—which is their term—discernment of what the majority
wants? If they want to go on that basis they could eliminate
Indian and aboriginal treaties in this country. They could
eliminate all sorts of things in this country because the
majority is either being told a pack of nonsense or the majority
does not like the minority who appear to be different.
Aboriginal people appear to be different from many of us in this
place. They have a different colour. I acknowledge that.
However, the reality is that we have entered into constitutional
agreements. That is not to say that they have special rights to
the exclusion of all others. We have recognized that this is the
right thing to do.
Let me go to something even more primitive or more fundamental.
Let us look at Prince Edward Island which has four members of
parliament. That was a constitutional guarantee. I guarantee I
could find a majority in this country who would want to wipe out
that constitutional privilege. Are they in some way enjoying
more privileges than the rest of us in perhaps Ontario or, dare I
say, Alberta? Prince Edward Island has a constitutional
guarantee of four senators. There are only six senators for the
province of Alberta. Is that to say that it has a privilege that
Alberta does not have? That is absolutely correct.
Why does the majority not rise up and eliminate that right? This
is a situation where it is the right thing to do. Sometimes we
have to do the right thing in this place.
1755
This is not about having a society that turns its back on the
majority. We would have people telling us that the majority
wants to exclude certain people. If we followed the line of
logic from the members opposite, what other minority groups in
this country do we not like? I could undoubtedly find many other
people who have been stereotyped as ones who should not receive
benefits.
In the House a while back an amendment was made to the Canadian
Human Rights Act, Bill C-33. Members opposite gave the same sort
of rhetoric with regard to that bill. They indicated that we
were attacking marriage. They said, if I heard them correctly,
that this was a slippery slope.
I want the member for Wild Rose to ask one of the would-be
leaders of the Canadian Alliance why Queen's Park sneaked bill 5
through in three days. It amended 67 provincial statutes.
Members on the other side cannot have it both ways. Why do they
not ask the member from Queen's Park, who supported it, the
member of their cousin party, the Progressive Conservative Party
of Ontario, who issues licences to ministers to perform
marriages? It is not this government. It is the provincial
government. If one were to follow their line of logic, who is
attacking marriage?
Let me back up and look at the real attack on marriage, which
occurred in 1974 and 1986 when laws were passed across Canada
which stated that if people lived together it was the same as
marriage. That was a provincial law and that, I would suggest to
the House, was an attack on marriage. Being fair to people
because they happen to live together and file their taxes
together does not make them somehow different. If those members
opposite ever became a majority, I would live in fear of the
majority rising up against people they believe to be different.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have
listened carefully to the debate throughout the day and I agree
with some of the previous speakers who talked about this as being
a difficult and moral issue.
I do not for a minute believe some of the material that has been
coming from the members to my left because I submit that the bill
is not about special rights for anyone. It is fundamentally
about fairness and equal rights. It is a recognition that
homosexual individuals pay into benefit plans and, until very
recently, have been denied the benefits that should flow from
those plans.
A good deal of discussion on Bill C-23, the modernization of
benefits and obligations act, has indicated that somehow this is
a judge-made law. It is important to recognize that the charter
of rights and freedoms, which was introduced in 1982 and came
into full force and in 1985, was achieved by the prime minister
and nine of the ten premiers in April, 18 years ago this month.
It was later ratified by the House of Commons and all the
legislatures, with the exception of the province of Quebec.
Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the
right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination
based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.
1800
As I say, that law was passed by parliamentarians in the
provinces and in the House of Commons. Under our laws it is
interpreted by the courts, which is fair. I think most citizens
would find it reasonable that somebody has to interpret it and it
is the courts and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada. Again
it says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, along
with a number of other categories.
As was pointed out by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in
the case of M and H there was a court decision. The supreme court
ruled eight to one that there should be a division of assets. In
my opinion Bill C-23 will ensure compliance with supreme court
rulings like that in M and H which call for an end to
discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court has ruled
simply that where benefits and obligations are extended to common
law heterosexual couples, these same benefits and obligations
must be extended to Canadians involved in long term same sex
relationships.
I was intrigued with a book that I picked up for the first time
last night. Justice, Not Just Us is written by Gerald
Vanderzande who is described on the jacket of the book as
follows: “What he has to say is always moving and compelling.
His words transcend the boundaries between denominations and
faith communities. In urging us to do God's work here and now he
demonstrates the true potential of contemporary religion. If
only its practitioners learned to act in unison”.
Gerald Vanderzande has something to say on this issue and I
would like to refer to it briefly. He writes for an organization
called Citizens for Public Justice. He said:
Let us now consider Citizens for Public Justice's position on
legal-equality rights for gays and lesbians. The government
encounters a variety of human relationships in our society,
including heterosexual marriages and other social
relationships—. When a government does not recognize, in law or
public policy, the reality of other, non-marital relationships in
our society, then, whether we like it or not, the courts are
forced to reinterpret the meaning and scope of marriage within
the existing legislation. That means that other relationships,
even though they are non-heterosexual and non-marital, must be
defined—
He goes on to say in this interesting document:
—all people are treated fairly when it comes to the recognition
of certain civil rights and freedoms and the provision of certain
services and programs—. How can we, without discriminating
against certain people—recognize the constitutional and other
rights of people who live in other “permanent” relationships?
He goes on to talk about what has happened in the far distant
past. We have had some references to that as well. Mr.
Vanderzande said:
Let me remind you that, as I understand it, in the Old Testament
Scriptures, most marriages were “common law”. There was not
what we now call a civil ceremony ensuring that people had made a
formal vow. There was not a public declaration of mutual
commitment before a civil authority. In fact, in the Scriptures,
the father (the patriarch) of the family often decided who was to
marry whom. In a culture that has moved on under a variety of
influences, the government now faces new social realities.
Government is not there to decide what is theologically correct.
It is there to decide what is publicly just.
He concludes in this portion of his book:
If we agree that religion (faith) is at the heart of life, and if
we agree that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rightly
protects everyone's basic beliefs and every institution's
religious or ideological convictions, and that the government
should not interfere with a citizen's basic beliefs and an
institution's freedom of expression, then can we not with respect
to various human relationships provide equal protection in terms
of public policy for those who live in a non-marital,
non-heterosexual relationship?
1805
In this important debate the words that Gerald Vanderzande has
included in his book Justice, Not Just Us are very
significant.
I appreciate that because of time allocation, with which we
disagree as well, time is running out. I did want to comment
before I take my seat that I disagree fundamentally with my
colleagues to the left and members on the Liberal benches
opposite who talk about polls and that this is important because
they have received hundreds of thousands of petitions stating
that 68% of the people that were polled by Angus Reid are in
favour of this. On something as fundamental as this we have to be
seen to be doing what is right and not what is necessarily
politically popular or unpopular.
An hon. member: It is discrimination.
Mr. Dick Proctor: If people are being discriminated
against, then that is grounds for correction. That is what this
debate fundamentally comes down to. It does not matter what the
public opinion polls say. It does not matter what the petitions
say. I am saying through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member
that the fundamental matter should be what we are doing to
protect the rights of minorities. That is the point that needs
to be made.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-23 has been used as a proxy for a much broader discussion
around the area of sexual orientation. It is useful to have the
discussion, but I think it is also useful to put it into context.
In much of the discussion today many members have talked about
intolerance, saying that if one is opposed to the bill then one
must be intolerant. I do not believe that would be a very fair
characterization of the position of members who try to argue for
something rather than against something. There is a difference.
Discrimination is not exclusively a negative concept. There are
positive or affirmative discriminations within our society. In
fact policy by its very nature is discriminatory because we do
not treat everybody the same.
We discriminate in favour of seniors so that when they reach age
65 they can qualify for old age security. That is discrimination
on the basis of age. We discriminate in favour of the disabled.
We understand there are people in our society who have needs that
as our value system dictates, we want to provide the assistance
they will need to care for them and their family members. We
discriminate in favour of aboriginals. We have special programs
to assist aboriginals.
We could talk a lot about the needs of various groups within our
society. All of these discriminatory practices within policy in
fact reflect the values and the consensus of the views of
Canadians. It is a value system. Although talking about values
in our society seems to be politically incorrect these days, the
fact remains that we do have a value system and we do have
standards and guidelines that ensure when we make policy in this
place and around the country that we are dealing with the lives
of Canadians in all walks of life.
Back in the 35th Parliament Bill C-33 came forward. Bill C-33
included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for
discrimination in the human rights code. The then commissioner
of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Max Yalden, made
public statements that if one were to include sexual orientation
as a prohibited ground for discrimination that it was logical. Of
course members know that discussion had to do with issues such as
discrimination vis-à-vis employment, housing and access to
services. Those were the negative discriminations with which I
believe all Canadians would agree. I think all Canadians agree
that people should not be discriminated against with regard to
housing, employment and access to services regardless of their
value system.
In Bill C-23 we are no longer just talking about the negative
discriminations. Now we are talking about the affirmative
discriminations.
One group does not get the same as another group and there are
these linkages. Now the pendulum is swinging. We have taken
care of the negative discriminations. Now we are saying that we
are that good and that equal that now we have to do this.
1810
The supreme court dealt with it. There was a series of cases.
There was Egan and Nesbit with regard to pension entitlements.
The court said yes, it is discrimination but the value system of
Canadians was that it would be permitted discrimination. I think
that was the language the court used.
There is now M and H, a case that came through the supreme
court. It said we have to recognize that people have other
relationships. M and H had to do with whether one same sex
partner had to pay support payments to the partner whom they
broke up with. All of a sudden this whole thing started to creep
from negative discrimination through equity and fairness and then
“I want a piece of the pie too”. That is how the pendulum has
swung.
I understand why there is so much discussion here. The die was
set early in the 35th parliament as to the direction we were
going. Max Yalden said if we put sexual orientation as a
prohibited ground of discrimination, this is the logical
extension of that move. Parliament made that step.
I am not so sure that it is the supreme court which is telling
parliament what to do. I think the decisions of parliamentarians
over the years in dealing with items that came to
parliamentarians have been acted upon by the courts because
parliament did not do its job.
I do not believe parliament did its job with regard to this
issue. We should have consulted with our constituents. We
should have raised legislation. We should have dealt with this
if we felt strongly enough but we did not as a parliament. The
courts did it as a result of that ruling.
Bill C-23 responds to the court decision. I believe it responds
accurately to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
When people talk about intolerance, it is not a fair label. It
is something from a broader discussion that people have been
talking about that we find difficult to discuss and talk openly
about.
Canadians should appreciate that about 3% of the population of
Canada are homosexual persons. It is quite a small number. Based
on the numbers from the corporations that provide benefits and so
on and what justice officials told me earlier today, about 1.6%
of same sex couples actually will ever qualify for benefits under
the bill. The reason is that relationships must last for at
least one year for them to qualify for any benefits.
That is why, as members have said quite often in the debate,
there is very little cost associated with it. There are two
reasons. One is that there are so very few couples that will ever
qualify for this. The other is that many of our benefits, like
the GST credit, are going to be based on partner income rather
than individual income and in fact same sex partners in a
relationship will last longer.
This bill actually is ultimately about marriage because we are
going to deal with it eventually. Canadians will know that
society exists and sustains itself because of the family. It is a
very difficult issue for a lot of members to deal with. I believe
in the traditional family. I believe that couples who raise
families, who raise healthy, well adjusted children are to be put
on a pedestal.
Many of the members here who are arguing against Bill C-23 are
actually arguing in favour of the family. Should we not
discriminate in favour of the family? Should we not hold that
traditional family on a pedestal and say that it is doing exactly
what is necessary for our society to continue to thrive and to
grow? Should we not discriminate in favour of that family and
give it more benefits?
We do have discrimination in our policy now. I gave many
examples. Can we not continue to discriminate in favour of the
traditional family with children? I believe we can. Canadians
ought to tell parliamentarians that they believe in the family,
that they believe marriage as is in this bill, which is the
lawful union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others
and it reflects the value system of Canadians.
1815
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty,
pursuant to the order made earlier today, to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 117. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on Motion
No. 117 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to
Motions Nos. 118 to 133.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.
1835
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1840
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bulte
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Duceppe
| Folco
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Harvey
| Jennings
| Kraft Sloan
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Price
| Proctor
|
St - Jacques
| Turp – 26
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 186
|
PAIRED
Members
[Translation]
After the taking of the vote:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
wish to indicate that I voted in favour. I just thought we were
voting a second time.
[English]
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I would like to have my vote recorded as no on the
vote just taken.
1845
Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as an abstention on the last vote.
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the motion now before the House.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bulte
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
Duceppe
| Folco
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Graham
|
Harvey
| Jennings
| Kraft Sloan
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Muise
| Nystrom
| Price
| Proctor
|
St - Jacques
| Turp – 26
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Augustine
| Axworthy
|
Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Bélair
|
Bellemare
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chatters
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Ritz
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 186
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1850
(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| 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
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 150
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 4 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
|
Chamberlain
| Chatters
| Comuzzi
| Cummins
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 83
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan – 131
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 to
24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50,
52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66 to 68, 70, 71, 73 to 76,
78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 90, 94 to 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104,
105, 107 to 110, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146 to 149, 153 to
158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166 to 169, 171 and 172.
1910
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
| Price
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 70
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Ianno
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 lost. I
therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21
to 24, 27, 28, 31 to 33, 35, 37 to 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 49,
50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66 to 68, 70, 71, 73 to
76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86 to 90, 94 to 96, 98, 99, 101, 102,
104, 105, 107 to 110, 135, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143, 146 to 149,
153 to 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166 to 169, 171 and 172 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 113.
1915
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 113, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 159
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 113 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 115. The vote on this motion will also
apply to Motion No. 116.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1925
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 115, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 144
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 115 lost and I
therefore Motion No. 116 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 144.
1930
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 144, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
| Peric
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
| Wappel
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 66
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Matthews
| McDonough
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 144 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 117. The vote on this motion
will also apply to Motions Nos. 118 to 133.
1935
(The House divided on Motion No. 117, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
| Mayfield
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vellacott
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 54
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hubbard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 163
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 117 lost.
I therefore declare Motions Nos. 118 to 133 lost.
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Before proceeding to the motion for concurrence at report stage,
I want to make sure that when the government whip asked for the
results of the vote on Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to be applied,
Progressive Conservative members who voted in favour were
recorded as having voted against Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 1.
1940
The Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the members of the
Progressive Conservative Party voted in favour of Motion No. 1
and want to continue to vote in favour of Motion No. 3.
I believe the decision of the House was to apply the vote on
Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 3. The members of the Progressive
Conservative Party voted yea for these two motions. Is that
right?
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, because it was a free vote, we
had not provided our voting reports earlier. Application of
the vote was sought but I want to make sure that the members who
voted yea were considered to have voted nay on Motion No. 3 and
Motion No. 1. In other words, for the two votes it is nay.
The Deputy Speaker: What the hon. member has requested is not
quite clear to the Speaker. Some members of his party voted in
favour, some opposed Motion No. 1.
The question put by the chief government whip was to apply, I
believe, the vote of all members on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 3.
This was unanimously agreed to by the House. Do you want to
change that?
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, exactly. Vote No. 1 was
applied, but we are also making a correction to the vote on
Motion No. 1 by voting no. If it is applied to Motion No. 3,
therefore, it is no in both cases.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Unless there is unanimous consent of
the House to change the vote, I think the matter is done. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent. The vote is
recorded as is and it is done.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred
in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1950
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Limoges
| Loubier
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Turp
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 148
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Comuzzi
| Cummins
| Doyle
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| McTeague
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Peric
| Ramsay
| Ritz
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Steckle
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Ur
| Vellacott
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 67
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I had the opportunity to pose a question to the Minister
of Health with regard to the CHST funding by the federal
government.
At the time the debate was about whether or not the transfer was
as the provinces had provided the information or in fact as the
federal government had presented the information. The House will
know that the provinces were suggesting the transfers under CHST
were 11 cents to 13 cents in cash, whereas the Minister of Health
advised the House very clearly that it was some 33 cents.
I thought it would be useful to try to clarify why there would
be this difference. As hon. members know, there continues to be
ads on the television which demonstrate a pile of pills
representing the provincial government's share of health care
funding and a smaller pile for the federal funding. Canadians
probably want to know a little bit more about why there is this
discrepancy.
It has to do with the change of the rules way back in 1977 when
the federal government transferred the ability to tax income to
the provincial governments. At the same time as transferring the
taxation authority to the provincial governments, the federal
government reduced its tax rates so that the net impact on the
taxpayer in fact was nil. It was an interesting period of time.
If I am not mistaken at that time the transfer of points was
13.5% on personal income tax and 1% on corporate taxation.
As it turns out, Canadians would probably be interested to know
that in terms of the value of the cash portion of transfers of
CHST funding, which includes health and the tax points or the
authorization to collect income tax given to the provinces, that
in 2000-01 the provinces will receive a total of some $30.8
billion in the Canadian health and social transfer amount. Of
that, $15.3 billion will be tax transfers and $15.5 billion will
be transfers in cash. Canadians will have to make up their own
minds about whether or not they believe there is some value in
tax points.
1955
Before we went to the whole situation of tax points there used
to be three separate bins, including a bin for established
programs funding as well as post-secondary education. Even then,
back in 1977, there was a tax component as well as a cash
component. As the value of taxation, as the revenues or the
economy of the provinces grew, tax on the growing economy would
increase and generate greater dollars of revenue for them, and
therefore the cash went down.
The only way that the federal government can enforce the
provisions of the Canada Health Act is to have a real cash
component so that it can be withheld in the event that a province
would decide, as Alberta has, to introduce legislation which
would, I believe, violate the Canada Health Act.
I raise the question today and ask the parliamentary secretary
if he understands that those are the details and that the real
truth is that the federal government contributes, in the form of
transfers to the provinces, regardless of what form they take, 33
cents of every health care dollar.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am standing in this
evening for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health, as my colleague was unable to be with us this evening.
[English]
On February 28, budget day, the Government of Canada announced a
$2.5 billion increase to the Canada health and social transfer
for provinces and territories to be used over four years for
health and post-secondary education. Let us not forget that this
$2.5 billion increase follows the largest single investment in
this government's history made through the previous budget, an
$11.5 billion increase in funding over five years specifically
for health.
In 2000-01 the CHST will reach a new high of close to $31
billion. Of this amount $15.3 billion will be in the form of tax
transfers and $15.5 billion in the form of cash transfers. The
bottom line is that the federal government spends in excess of 31
cents of every public health care dollar spent by governments in
Canada. That is clearly more than 7 cents or 13 cents, as some
provinces and the opposition claim.
Let us review the facts. It is projected that governments will
spend—not individuals, but governments—$64 billion on public
health care this fiscal year. Federal direct funding combined
with CHST health spending means that about $20 billion out of
next year's projected $64 billion in public health care spending,
or 31 cents on the dollar, will be financed by the Government of
Canada.
In fact if we factor in the $9.5 billion that the federal
government will transfer to the less prosperous provinces and
territories to invest in health care and other priorities, total
federal transfers in 2000-01 will reach $40.6 billion.
All told, Government of Canada spending clearly exceeds 31 cents
on the dollar. Let me emphasize, as the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Finance have said, that if more money is needed to
ensure accessible and sustainable high quality health care for
the 21st century, the Government of Canada will be there.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is
now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.58 p.m.)