36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 53
CONTENTS
Monday, February 21, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Motion
|
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
1130
1135
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1140
1145
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1150
1155
| Mr. André Bachand |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
1250
(Division 687)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Bill C-23. Second reading
|
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Bill C-23—Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
1255
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Second Reading
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1300
1305
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1310
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1315
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1320
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1325
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1330
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1350
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
1400
| INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| BUDGET 2000
|
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1405
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| FIREARMS ACT
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| UJJAL DOSANJH
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| GÉRALD LAROSE
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1410
| MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| NATIONAL UNITY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| HERITAGE DAY
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
| HEART AND STROKE MONTH
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| CHURCHILL
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1420
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1445
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HATE CRIMES
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1450
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1455
| AIR INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GASOLINE PRICES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1500
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINT OF ORDER
|
| Canadian Flags
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-10. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Library of Parliament
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| PETITIONS
|
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Second Reading.
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1510
1515
| Mr. John Maloney |
1520
1525
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-2—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-23. Second reading
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1530
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1535
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1540
1545
| Mr. John Bryden |
1550
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1555
1600
| Mr. John Maloney |
1605
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1610
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1630
| Mr. David Price |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1635
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1640
1645
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1650
1655
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1700
1705
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1710
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1715
1720
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
1725
1730
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1735
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1740
1745
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1750
1755
1800
| Mr. David Price |
1805
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1810
1845
(Division 688)
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted day—Legislative Committee on Bill C-20
|
| Motion
|
1855
(Division 689)
| Amendment negatived
|
1900
(Division 690)
| Motion negatived
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1905
| Elections Canada
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
1910
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Agriculture
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1915
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 53
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 21, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
convene a meeting of “like-minded” nations in order to develop
a multilateral plan of action to reform international
organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank,
United Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of
conflict and establish multilateral conflict-prevention
initiatives.
1105
He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank members from all political
parties for showing support for the motion. It is a motion that
will save many lives and, indeed, for Canada, it will demonstrate
our extraordinary leadership on the world stage for the
collective good.
With the unanimous consent of all members, I would like to
change the wording of the motion in a way which I think the
government and other political parties will find acceptable. I
have only changed a couple of words. The motion would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
continue to intensify efforts with `like-minded nations' to
further develop multilateral initiatives in order to strengthen
the capacity of international organizations (e.g. International
Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) to enable them to
identify the precursors of conflict and improve their conflict
prevention capabilities.
I ask for unanimous consent that this be the motion that stands.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The debate is on the
motion as it was originally presented to the House.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, the motion will enable us
as a country to deal with the horrible situation facing the world
today. We have seen throughout the world tens of thousands of
people who have been indiscriminately slaughtered in internecine
conflicts.
We heard the refrain time and time again “Never Again”; never
again would we see the slaughter that took place during World War
II. After World War II the world got together and made a
commitment to end the conflict that plagued it. In the case of
Europe, we saw the decimation, destruction and genocide of over 6
million Jews, gypsies and other people who were unwanted by the
Germans at that time.
After World War II, instead of the world breaking apart, it came
together to develop the IMF, the World Bank and the United
Nations. However, the outcome was two superpowers glaring at
each other over a nuclear arsenal that was enough to destroy and
decimate the world.
Since the breakdown of the Berlin Wall, we have seen a very
different picture. After the cold war and the post-cold war era
there has been a proliferation of internecine conflicts,
conflicts within states. Rather than soldiers being killed,
which is what took place during World War II and before, we now
have situation where civilians are the ones being slaughtered.
Over 90% of the casualties occurring today are innocent people
like us and the viewers out there.
It is not a situation for the faint of heart. When I used to
work in Africa, situations happened where children came up
holding their bowels after they had been eviscerated. At the end
of last year a friend of mine who worked in Uganda was confronted
by a group of women who were walking along a roadway. Children,
as part of the Lord's Resistance Army, stood up, took the women
to the side of the road, cut off their ears, their noses and
their lips and forced the women to eat the parts. This is the
brutality that children were inflicting on adults.
Those same children were abducted by other adults in northern
Uganda. However, before they were abducted they were forced to
kill one of their parents. This is the kind of trauma that is
occurring there.
We see circumstances in west Africa where individuals have their
hands and legs chopped off. It is not to kill them but to
terrorize them.
In Central Africa right now we have the largest war in the
history of the world with unspeakable brutality taking place.
Widespread torture of unimaginable proportions is taking place
against innocent civilians. The international community has been
unable and unwilling to deal with these situations in a
preventive manner.
1110
Today I will articulate a way of dealing with conflict and of
preventing it.
Too often in our foreign policy today we confuse conflict
prevention with conflict management. When we talk about conflict
prevention we often talk about peacekeeping and peacemaking,
which is often too late because once blood has been spilled and
people have been killed the seeds for future ethnic discontent
and war have been sown for generations to come.
Trauma has been inflicted upon children and lost generations
occur. We see that in many countries of the world, from Caucasus
in Europe, to Bosnia, to west Africa, to Central Africa, to South
Africa and to South America, to name just a few. Whole
generations are lost. Economies are laid to waste. The degree
of trauma to a nation is extraordinary, not only to the people
but to the costs that are inflicted.
In the case of Mozambique, in its 16-year civil war 400,000
people were slaughtered, 400,000 children lost their lives,
200,000 children were orphaned and the gross domestic product
fell to 20% of its pre-war situation. We had a country laid to
waste. This is what is happening throughout the world.
Why should we as Canadians be involved or interested? We should
be involved not only on a humanitarian basis but in cold hard
dollars and cents. If we do not get involved and prevent these
conflicts then we pay for it through our defence, aid and our
domestic social program budgets. When conflicts occur we have
refugees leaving their countries and going to other countries,
including our own.
We need look no further than the Somalia and Ethiopia situations
where thousands of poor individuals have come to our country
putting demands on our immigration social program budgets. We
have welcomed them here because of the circumstances that they
left, but I am sure most of these people would rather live in
their own homes in peace and security than have to move half a
world away just to have their basic human needs met. We must
prevent conflicts because it costs us, it costs them and it costs
the world.
The cost of peacekeeping and peacemaking to the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the UN has driven these
institutions, particularly the UN, to bankruptcy. The UN costs
have increased dramatically. The peacekeeping and peacemaking
options have increased dramatically. It takes such an enormous
chunk of money out of them that they simply cannot afford to
function. It is driving them into bankruptcy.
In the case of the World Bank, the cost of post-conflict
reconstruction has increased 800% in the last 12 years alone.
This cannot continue but it will continue unless we put measures
in place to prevent conflicts from occurring.
Here is a road map to conflict prevention. The first thing we
need is an early warning centre. I propose today to the Canadian
government that it work with members from across party lines to
develop an early warning centre in Canada.
There are three possible sites that I have identified: First,
Royal Roads Military College in Victoria, which has an excellent
centre for conflict prevention; second, the Norman Paterson
School of International Affairs in Ottawa with its fine
post-graduate programs in diplomacy and in teaching political
science; and third, the International Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development in Montreal.
Any of those sites could be an early warning centre where people
from around the world could input data from the private sector,
NGOs, private individuals and academia. They could input
information concerning their particular area for human rights
abuses, violence being meted out to individuals and torture or
polarization taking place between different ethnic groups, which
is what usually happens. Polarization is foisted upon certain
groups, usually by despots who are trying to do this for their
own political gain.
An early warning centre is key. Second, we need to have a series
of responses. These have to be an integrated series of responses
involving diplomatic, economic and military initiatives.
1115
The diplomatic initiatives are fairly self-evident. I propose
again today that the government work with like minded nations,
with other interested parties, to develop a rapid reaction force
of multilateral diplomats under UN auspices that can go early
into a situation. We have rapporteurs in the Horn of Africa but
we need more of them. We need teams of diplomats who are viewed
as being independent and without prejudice who will go in and try
to identify ways in which the circumstances can be diffused.
Third is economic issues. This is an area that has been
untouched and unexplored and an area wherein we as a nation can
use multilateral organizations to enormous effect. Using
economic levers can be very effective both as a carrot and a
stick in the prevention of deadly conflict.
War needs money. We have all seen pictures on television
screens of individuals in impoverished countries where the
average income is $1 a day, carrying on their backs AK-47s, 50
calibre machine guns and enough weaponry that would cost them
years to be able to afford. The money to buy these comes from
somewhere. To look behind the scenes to see where it comes from
is interesting. We must develop a way to choke the money supply.
We can do that by applying sanctions targeted particularly at
despots engaging in behaviours patently destructive to their
people.
We could look at the present situation in Angola where President
Dos Santos and the head of UNITA have been engaging in a war for
more than 12 years that has resulted in the slaughter of hundreds
of thousands of people. As we speak, there is an impending
devastating famine in Angola, completely and utterly organized by
the two individuals that have been engaging in war for so long
and using their people as tools and pawns.
Angola is one of the richest countries in Africa, and indeed the
world, with its billions of dollars from the sale of oil and
diamonds, diamonds that we buy when we get engaged or married.
The diamonds coming from Angola are fuelling a conflict that is
causing the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent
civilians as we speak.
We must develop ways to choke off the money supply. Intelligent
targeted sanctions and the use of financial levers should be
applied to these individuals to encourage them to pursue peace
and not to take the road toward polarizing groups. Using
economic levers as a carrot on a stick can be enormously
successful in the prevention of deadly conflicts.
The World Bank and the IMF should put conditions on their loans
and on their development aid packages. We simply cannot continue
to pour money into countries with no good government and where
there will be an explosion of conflict. Once conflict takes
place all the aid and development engaged in for decades is
destroyed. We go back to square one. All the good money that we
and many other countries of the world have put into the IMF, the
World Bank and the UN for development is for naught once conflict
takes place.
We can look at the degree at which destruction can occur. If we
look at Kuwait, six months after Saddam Hussein walked into
Kuwait he destroyed the country. It will take up to $100 billion
to bring Kuwait back to where it was. Who pays for that? Kuwait
and the international community.
We cannot afford it. International organizations cannot afford
it. We have to prevent it. The IMF, the UN and the World Bank
need to put conditions on the actions of countries behaving in
ways that are completely destructive to the internal and external
security of their regions. The government has done some
excellent work in Sierra Leone by sending one of our colleagues
there. We need to continue doing this.
1120
All these organizations are not apart from us. They are us. We
make up those organizations. People like to sling arrows at the
UN, the IMF and the World Bank, but we are a part of them. We
make the decisions and set the direction of these organizations.
Therefore we can change it. In self-interest we must argue with
other countries of the world that this can no longer continue.
Usually the last resort is military. It can also be implemented
in a preventative fashion as was done in Macedonia. The argument
can be that a small early investment in troops, particularly of a
multilateral nature, can be enormously effective in preventing
conflict. We saw this is in Macedonia.
It would have worked in Rwanda if it had happened before April
1994. Instead we sat on our hands and did nothing. I find it
ironic that the European Union would rise on its hind legs and
criticize Mr. Haider for his egregious and repulsive comments of
the past. It went through enormous gymnastics to slam him yet
sat on its hands when it knew that people were being slaughtered
in Srebrenica and Bihac. The European Union was targeted with
doing something about it. It knew full well that people would be
slaughtered and it did absolutely nothing.
Right now we see situations all over the world where the
European Union, the OSCE, the OEDC and the UN are sitting on
their hands while people are being slaughtered. In Rwanda there
is another impending conflict. It is the same one that took the
lives of over 700,000. It will happen again. We do not hear a
peep about what is happening in Angola, yet thousands of people
are being slaughtered. In northern Angola the body parts of
innocent civilians are being chopped off and fed to them, and we
are doing very little to save them from this trauma.
Military intervention has to take place under certain
circumstances. Troops have to be armed for war while engaged in
peacekeeping missions. We cannot send them into a situation
without being armed appropriately. They must have robust rules
of engagement. We cannot have a situation like occurred in
Bosnia where soldiers helplessly watched while innocent citizens
were gunned down. They must have the mandate to go to their
defence.
That is why a rapid reaction force is good. I compliment the
Minister of Foreign Affairs for proposing that in the past. It
is good and we need to continue to work toward it. Five to ten
thousand troops in a multilateral initiative that has a permanent
peacekeeping base and operation centre can be very useful for
diffusing a situation early, but it has to be multilateral.
I hope these initiatives will take place with regional
organizations. Regional organizations can and should play an
enormous role. Too much emphasis has been placed on first world
countries, NATO and North America to implement peacekeeping and
peacemaking solutions. More power and more initiative has to
come from organizations like the OAU, OSCE and ASEAN on security
issues within their areas. This is important.
The next point is to deal with the U.S. arms registry. It
should be expanded to involve the sale of small arms. The
greatest producers of small arms are the G-8 nations and the five
permanent members of the security council. They stand and want
to talk about peace, yet they are fuelling the fires by selling
small arms to individuals engaging in wars in which civilians are
being slaughtered. This circular pattern needs to be broken. We
need to engage in the rules and regulations and develop a method
of preventing deadly conflict.
In summary, I thank the government and members of the other
political parties for their support of this apolitical motion.
It is one that could be extremely useful to our country in
finally breaking the cycle of war that continues to take place.
The major problem we have is a lack of political will and action.
1125
If I have not been able to argue today on humanitarian grounds
the basic need to intervene by helping civilians who are helpless
and are being slaughtered, tortured or raped indiscriminately,
perhaps I can convince the House to support the motion on the
basis of self-interest. If we do not get involved early on in
these conflicts we will pay for it in defence aid and economic
costs to the taxpayers of Canada.
The world is looking for a leader to revamp the UN, the IMF and
other regional organizations. It is up to us to work with other
parties in this regard. There is a will and a desire to do it
but there needs to be a flame or spark to ignite it.
It is not an option for us but an obligation. It is something
of which Canadians would be proud, something we could do and
something that would be manifestly important for the security of
the international community.
[Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the motion before us calls
on the government to convene a meeting of “like-minded” nations
in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform
international organizations, so that they can play a more
effective role in the area of conflict prevention.
The hon. member has rightly brought to the attention of the
House the importance of strengthening the capacity of
international organizations to prevent conflict.
Our government, in particular the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
is cognizant of the devastating effects of conflicts around the
world. Recent events have demonstrated that Canadians are not
isolated from international conflict.
Consider the recent Air India hijacking, the kidnapping last
year of eight Albertan oil workers in Ecuador, the insidious
influence of the illicit drug trade on young Canadians, the
impact on Canada of the global traffic in human cargo, and the
spectre of terrorist activity in our country. These are all
human security threats happening today in Canada or to
Canadians.
As members know, the promotion of human security is a foreign
policy priority of this government.
Human security is a complement to national security which takes
the safety and well-being of people as the measure of security.
Canada views conflict prevention paired with good governance and
respect for human rights as the best path to follow to achieve
sustainable peace and human security and achieve our goals. We
are already pursuing these goals in a wide range of
international fora.
There are many ongoing efforts to enhance the capacity of the
international community to improve conflict prevention. Canada
believes that the United Nations must be at the centre of the
international community's efforts to prevent conflict.
The charter of the United Nations, with its strong emphasis on
“we the peoples”, has as a guiding principle the promotion of
human security.
We now need to give new meaning to these words, to make the UN's
actions more relevant to the security and welfare of individual
human beings, in a way, to give the Organization back to the
world's people for whom it was founded.
That is why Canada sought election to the United Nations
Security Council. The United Nations remains the only global
body with nearly universal membership. It has a mandate to
assist states to prevent and resolve conflict and build lasting
peace. The United Nations Security Council has as its central
role the maintenance of peace and security.
Canada has consistently called for greater security council
activism on conflict prevention.
We welcomed the debate led by our Slovenian colleagues on the
security council last November.
Canada called on the security council to embrace a culture of
prevention rather than responding once conflict has broke out.
We stressed the security council's key role as a deterrent to
conflict, in particular through the judicious and timely use of
instruments at its disposal.
These include peacekeeping interventions, sanctions and the
creation of international criminal tribunals.
1130
By ending impunity for war crimes and other human rights abuses,
these instruments in turn deter others. Above all, by becoming
more responsible to threats to human security, the security
council will serve as a more effective tool of conflict
prevention.
Out of that important security council debate came a
presidential statement in which the security council reaffirmed
its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations to
take action on its own initiative in order to maintain
international peace and security.
The statement also expressed the security council's intention to
support, with appropriate follow-up action of course, efforts to
prevent conflict by the UN secretary-general through such areas
as fact-finding missions, good offices and other activities
requiring action by his envoys and special representatives.
The security council also decided to consider the possibility of
a meeting at the level of foreign ministers on the issue of
prevention of armed conflicts during the Millennium Assembly,
which will be held this fall.
Canada, as a member of the security council—and as president next
April—remains engaged in the ongoing discussions on this matter.
We reject the argument that the security council should limit
its attention to traditionally defined conflicts between states.
In this spirit, we participated in the recent open debate of
the security council, chaired by the United States, on the
impact of AIDS on peace and security in Africa.
Canada's deputy permanent representative to the UN said during
the debate that the AIDS pandemic has presented, and continues
to present, major challenges to governments, in part because one
quarter to one half of African personnel in the health,
education, security and civil service sectors are expected to
die from AIDS within the next five to ten years.
Not only is this a serious human tragedy, but it is also a
tangible threat to peace and order in the affected countries
which already confront many other challenges, including civil
strife, refugee flows and internal displacement, rapid
urbanization and poverty.
A year ago, when Canada assumed the rotating presidency of the
security council, we convened an open debate on the protection
of civilians in armed conflict.
The meeting was chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
identified four challenges facing the security council. These
included: the prevention of conflict; ensuring respect for
international humanitarian and human rights law; supporting the
pursuit of those who violate humanitarian norms and standards;
and, finally, addressing the issue of the instruments of war.
Canada was pleased that the security council agreed to ask the
secretary-general to prepare a report on the protection of
civilians in armed conflict. The secretary-general's report was
tabled last September. His excellent report identified concrete
measures that might be taken to improve the legal and physical
protection of civilians in armed conflict, including several
practical recommendations for preventing conflict.
The secretary-general called for adherence to and ratification,
implementation and dissemination of international human rights,
humanitarian and refugee law instruments.
He advocated greater responsiveness to the early warning
indicators of conflict by making use of human rights information
and analysis from independent treaty body experts and the UN
Commission on Human Rights. He recommended the establishment of
expert working groups of the council to monitor volatile
situations and to consider options to prevent the outbreak of
violence.
The secretary-general also suggested that the council consider
the deployment of preventive peacekeeping operations such as
UNPREDEP in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 1995,
or other preventive monitoring presences, and he noted the need
to address hate media assets in situations of ongoing conflict.
He also identified factors which should trigger action by the
security council to protect civilians in the face of massive
human rights violations or humanitarian emergencies.
Building on the Canadian drafted resolution adopted in September
on this subject, Canada now chairs an informal experts-level
working group of the security council which is considering ways
to implement the report's recommendations.
1135
We have also provided support for the Lessons Learned Unit
within the United Nations to foster the development of
guidelines for demilitarization, demobilization and
reintegration of combatants during the peace process. In
addition, Canada has created CANADEM, a stand-by roster of
experts in various peacebuilding skills, who are available on
short notice to serve on human rights field missions and in
peace support operations around the world.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the government welcomes
the interest of the hon. member in the issue of conflict
prevention. We do not disagree that the international community
must continue to enhance its ability to prevent conflict,
including through international organizations. Through the
promotion of human security, this government is working at the
United Nations, in the G-8 and within a network of states to
accomplish just that.
The government is already involved in ongoing efforts, both
formal and informal, and involving a broad range of countries
aimed at achieving the objective contained in the hon. member's
motion. As I have indicated, Canada is at the forefront of
these efforts to enhance the international community's conflict
prevention capabilities.
For this reason, the government is not convinced that the
adoption of this motion calling for the convening of a meeting
would be conducive to advancing the important objective of
improving the international community's conflict prevention
capability.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in connection
with the motion by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca,
while I have sympathy for his intentions, at the same time I
have misgivings about the wording and even his proposed
amendment, for a number of reasons which I am going to explain.
First of all, I have sympathy. He spoke eloquently of the
extremely troubling and revolting scenes taking place all around
the world, which are intolerable. We will readily agree that
millions of people have been killed all over the world in
senseless conflicts since the end of the cold war. We are all
aware of this.
We can also hope for prevention.
The desire to take preventive action is not lacking, not in the
hon. member, not in the government, not in the party I
represent, not in members of parliament, not in ordinary
citizens, not in the NGOs. The real question is: how we go
about it.
The proposal made by the hon. member, and I recognize his merit
in so doing, is to perhaps stir up debate on this in the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. This might be the ideal
forum for doing so. However, several aspects of the motion
disturb me.
First of all, the notion that one country could play a lead
role, to spark a so-called policy of the necessity of prevention,
is not realistic. This is not how it is done. Many people
everywhere want to carry out prevention.
We need only go to the UN, to visit the representatives of the
institute for conflict resolution. Many people are working
concretely on this.
On the other hand, when he refers to like-minded countries, in
French “nations de même esprit”, this raises questions in my
mind.
1140
If we are to create a real prevention force, there may be
countries with different visions, but these visions together
must then lead to the establishment of a plan, if a plan is
enough.
My first question concerns the expression “like-minded
nations”.
I will now deal with the expression “in order to develop a
multilateral plan”. I must say that I have a bit of a problem
with that. Our hon. colleague is his party's critic, and his
party revealed a new position on foreign policy last fall. I
was therefore expecting that, as critic, he would adopt this
policy, I understand that this is not the case, and I am a bit
lost.
It was in light of this policy that I prepared my speech. I
note that my colleague is distancing himself a little from it,
but he will have to tell us more. Developing a multilateral
plan involves all parties, otherwise how could we manage?
The motion says “to reform multinational organizations”. They
do indeed need reform. There has been consensus on the need for
reform in the various forums I have participated in. Mr.
Camdessus, the outgoing president of the International Monetary
Fund, does nothing but talk about the interests of the
developing countries, but what was his policy when he was the
active president?
We have all seen the fiasco of the Seattle summit, resulting
from the collision between the rich countries and the others.
The gap between the rich countries and the poor ones is
widening.
We cannot be thinking that a single political plan will reform
these international bodies. Major interests are at stake.
So long as the rich countries, including the most powerful, do
not understand the link between the unacceptable aggression
happening worldwide and poverty, we will get nowhere.
The aim of the member's motion is for the plan to make it
possible to “identify the precursors of conflict”. I think
there are ample such organizations. In Canada and Quebec, there
are groups working at the site of conflicts around the world. I
heard what Canada's ambassador to the UN, Mr. Fowler, has to say
and I have also read what he has written. If the situation in
Rwanda, around the great lakes, turned into something like what
we have seen elsewhere, he was not certain that the UN would
intervene.
I respectfully submit that the problem is not that we do not
know there will be conflicts.
The hon. member's motion also says establish multilateral
conflict-prevention initiatives. There is nothing my party and I
wish for more than for countries to be able to achieve that. As
the hon. member pointed out, in 1997, out of the 27 conflicts
that occurred, 24 were internal ones taking place within a
country.
1145
These conflicts involve groups and people who have power
relationships between each other. These conflicts sometimes have
economic roots. Some of them occur because a group wants
recognition. It is not enough to know that a conflict is
brewing. We must also understand the situation, otherwise we
will not be able to intervene.
Let us take the conflict in Kosovo, regarding which there was
what I would call a reluctant consensus in this House to call
for military intervention. The current situation in Kosovo is
extremely problematical. In the name of humanitarian objectives
that I shared then and that I still share, we created a
situation where the multi-ethnicity of society has become
difficult to maintain.
That conflict should have been avoided altogether. But how could
it have been avoided without looking at the issue of Kosovo's
self-determination?
However, the international community is still opposed to
self-determination. In preparation for this speech, I read a book
written under the direction of Charles-Philippe David and Albert
Legault, two very attentive observers in Quebec. In their book,
a professor wrote the following about Yugoslavia:
An analysis of the events that preceded the declarations of
sovereignty and independence of Slovenia and Croatia suggests
that the armed conflict in Yugoslavia might have been avoided if
the international community had been prepared to rethink the
role and implementation of the principle of self-determination.
I understand the hon. member's determination, but I cannot
support the proposal in its present form. However, I hope that
this debate will lead to more discussions on the issue.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on
this important motion. I want to congratulate the hon. member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for proposing this motion to the
House.
I welcome the general note that he has struck in his comments in
speaking to the motion. I might say, as my colleague from the
Bloc Quebecois indicated, that it represents somewhat of a shift
from the position that appeared to have been taken by the Reform
Party last fall. In October the Reform Party tabled a foreign
policy document that in fact would take us in many respects back
to the dark ages, a document that in fact in many respects was
highly critical of the role of the United Nations, a document
that was isolationist and profoundly reactionary in many
respects.
I am not sure if the new critic—and I congratulate him on his
appointment to that position—is now putting some distance
between himself and the policies of the Reform Party as
enunciated in that earlier document. I can only say that I
certainly hope that is the case.
I was somewhat troubled by the comments that the critic made
with respect to an important issue last week. That was with
respect to the policy of the Government of Canada to join with
the European Union and many other countries in voicing our deep
concern as Canadians about the profoundly racist and anti-Semitic
policies of Joerg Haider in Austria. It is my understanding that
the position of that member was that Canada should not have
joined with the European Union in expressing our strong
condemnation of those policies and, in particular, joining in the
diplomatic isolation of Haider. That signal was again an
unfortunate one.
The motion before the House today calls on parliament to urge
the government to show leadership with respect to identifying the
precursors of conflict and establishing conflict prevention
initiatives.
It speaks of a number of multilateral organizations: the IMF,
the World Bank and the United Nations. To that I would add the
World Trade Organization, a very important organization. More
and more we see in these international organizations that they
are being driven not by human values or respect for human rights,
but by global corporate values, the global pursuit of profit. We
saw that in the context of the WTO meetings in Seattle.
1150
I was proud that a broad cross-section of people from around the
world stood to vigorously reject that agenda. They said that as
part of any fair global trade regime we must put human rights,
the rights of working men and women and the environment at the
forefront. As long as we cannot, for example, take action on the
exploitation of child labour within the WTO there is something
terribly misguided, wrong and twisted about those priorities.
I stand here as a New Democrat, as member of a party that has
since its founding been committed to strengthening multilateral
organizations which work on behalf of the interests of people.
Forefront among those is the United Nations. So much of what the
UN has done is tremendously important in advancing those global
objectives of human and social justice. I think of the work of
UNICEF, the World Food Council and many others.
At the same time we have to recognize that the time has come to
make significant changes, to reform those organizations. That is
why I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I
congratulate the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his
leadership in bringing this issue before the House of Commons.
We have to look at the structure of the United Nations itself.
We must strengthen that body. We must certainly look at the
composition of the security council of the United Nations, which
does not reflect present global realities, and we must look at
how we can more effectively strengthen the general assembly of
the United Nations.
However, we have a more fundamental challenge today, and that is
how we can restore confidence and respect in the process of the
United Nations itself, because too often the countries of the
world and, in particular, the most powerful country of the world,
the United States, show contempt for those resolutions.
I will give a few examples and share some of the concerns that
we New Democrats feel about that.
[Translation]
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is, as my colleague
for Mercier has said, in the process of addressing the Kosovo
situation. The United Nations has passed a very important
resolution, resolution 1244, which is aimed at restoring an
environment in Kosovo in which there is respect for all the
inhabitants of Kosovo, including the Serb minority.
There have already been some very powerful, very significant
reports as to how this resolution is not being respected in
Kosovo at all. As well, there are insufficient resources to
promote human rights, rebuild the country's infrastructures and
establish a fair judiciary sytem. The cost of one or two days
of bombing would be sufficient now to create a fair and just
country.
[English]
The United Nations has failed in Kosovo, not only to protect
fundamental human rights, particularly the rights of the Serb
minority and other minorities, but at the same time to put in
place the resources that are necessary to establish respect for
that resolution.
We see that in too many other areas. We see it with respect to
the resolutions that have been adopted overwhelmingly by the
United Nations on Cuba, condemning the United States embargo or
blockade of Cuba, and yet the United States shows total contempt
for those resolutions. We see it with respect to the Middle
East. Recently many of us voiced deep concern about the Israeli
bombing of southern Lebanon. It is in total violation of many
United Nations resolutions, not the least of which is resolution
425 which calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, which would
help lead to a peaceful solution in that very troubled part of
the world. Once again it is selective enforcement of United
Nations resolutions.
1155
I want to recognize as well the concern that many have voiced
about the failure of the United Nations to respond to a continent
that is undergoing profound agony. I know the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has spoken to this and indeed has
travelled that continent, Africa. Too often the United Nations
has turned a blind eye to the terrible tragedy, the grinding
poverty, the debt burden and the terrible violations of human
rights in Africa. I hope, as part of this debate, that we will
have an opportunity to address that issue as well.
The last issue I want to touch on is the question of Iraq. The
hon. member talked about United Nations policies on sanctions. I
had the privilege of participating in a delegation which
travelled last month to Iraq, sponsored by a group from Quebec,
Objection de conscience. What we have seen in that country are
humanitarian, environmental and social disasters as a result of
the implementation of United Nations sanctions. Our government
has talked about human security as being the cornerstone of our
foreign policy, but how can we speak of human security in Iraq
when over 500,000 innocent children have died as a direct result
of this cruel and inhumane sanctions policy?
We must recognize that the policy must be changed. Indeed, the
last two UN humanitarian co-ordinators for Iraq have resigned.
Denis Halliday resigned.
[Translation]
As the co-ordinator put it, “We are destroying an entire society.
It is as simple and as terrifying as that”.
[English]
We learned last week that the current UN humanitarian
co-ordinator, Hans Von Sponeck, is also resigning in despair over
the failure of this sanctions policy in Iraq. The head of the
World Food Programme has also announced her resignation.
I take this opportunity to plead with the Government of Canada
to show leadership and to call for the lifting of these inhumane
sanctions on the people of Iraq.
I close by once again welcoming this debate. In the remaining
hours of the debate I look forward to continuing to discuss how
we can strengthen and reform the United Nations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will
continue the debate until 12:05 p.m., in order that we will have
a full hour for Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
already had the opportunity to speak to the motion by my
colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I would like to add
a few points.
The first time we discussed this motion, I noted its
difficulties and limits with respect to the concept of
like-minded nations. Obviously, if we have a bill from the
government, for example the upcoming budget, and I invite the
four opposition parties, we are like minded. It seems fairly
easy to unanimously oppose something, someone or some bill.
When it comes to like-minded nations, apart from developing
awareness, from saying how good we are and that we are on the
right track, I am not sure we will reach the desired end. That
said, it does not mean doing nothing.
One of the consequences of this concept, which is already
several years old, is that groups already exist but do not have
the backing of the major international organizations, which have
been in existence since, the second world war, the 1960s or the
1970s.
1200
We need only think, for example, of the two groups, when the
issue of genetically modified organisms was discussed. We had
the Miami Club and others. Instead of seeking a solution, we
divided ourselves. However, I want to stress that the beauty of
Motion M-30 is that it develops an awareness to all international
organizations. It might have been advisable to give priority to
one or two, instead of providing examples.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you a question, since you have
been following world events since World War II. How many
international organizations have been created since, and how
many have disappeared? Not many.
International organizations were created and more continue to be
added every year. The result is that their duties are added or
changed, and there is duplication. People, including
parliamentarians in this House, must humbly recognize that they
cannot keep track of what is going on.
Earlier, I referred to the hierarchy among international
organizations. This morning, we talked a lot about Kosovo and
about the gulf war. During the gulf war, the UN assumed a large
part of the decision-making process. A few years later, the case
of Kosovo came up. Because some members did not think it was
effective enough, the UN was replaced by NATO.
So, depending on what is going on at the international level, we
choose those organizations that we like. Another situation where
people pick and choose is in the case of trade disputes between
Canada and the United States.
If they think they have a better chance of winning out over
Canada in the WTO, they are going to opt for the WTO. If they
think the chances there are less good, they will opt for the
free trade agreement. There is a problem. Which is the more
important? The bilateral agreements, the international, the
multilateral? No one knows. The decision is made at the time.
I have referred to the UN and to NATO. Which is more important?
Depending on what the Americans want, they are going to opt for
the UN, for NATO or for some other organization.
It is indeed high time to think seriously about the
internationalization of absolutely everything. Today there is
frequent reference to the sovereignty of a country, but finally
something is relinquished. I do not know if I can use marriage
as an example, not having the experience myself, but it is a bit
like when people get married.
Two people marry—whether or not they are of the same sex, and
that will be voted on later today—and they decide to pool certain
things, accept certain obligations, and thus relinquish some of
their sovereignty, because of their marriage. On the
international level, it is the same thing, when it comes down to
it. We relinquish more and more of our sovereignty in
international organizations and lose more and more of ourselves.
Frequently, in Foreign Affairs or elsewhere, there is a desire
to put an initiative in place, but we are reminded that this is
contrary to an agreement signed with this or that organization.
In another case, we will say “Yes, that is what we should do”.
But then we are told that it cannot be done, because of the free
trade agreement, the UN, NATO. So we are extremely limited.
Of course, we support what Motion M-30 proposes, as we did before
the last session was prorogued. I can tell hon. members that
profound reflection will be required. I could spend days
discussing the matter, but unfortunately my time is up.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided for
Private Members' Business has expired. The hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska will have four minutes when next this item
comes before the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[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 second 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 second reading stage
of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purposes 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.
1205
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1250
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Barnes
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 121
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Brison
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Jones
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Muise
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Price
|
Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne – 73
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
BILL C-23—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I am now prepared to deal with the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary
Centre on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 relating to the alleged
disclosure of Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of
Canada in relation to benefits and obligations, to a third party
before the introduction and first reading of the bill in the
House.
I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter
to the attention of the House, as well as the opposition House
leader, the parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader and the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley
for the assistance they have offered to the Chair.
The issue raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre concerned
the premature disclosure of Bill C-23 by the Minister of Justice
to a special interest group which subsequently did an in-depth
analysis of the bill before it was actually introduced and read a
first time in the House.
In his presentation the hon. member argued that this behaviour
was contrary to the parliamentary law and practices of the House.
1255
[Translation]
I fully understand the frustrations of the hon. member regarding
the circulation of documents that are of a confidential nature
and I have ruled on this in the past. Certainly, the Chair is of
the opinion that government bills, once placed on notice, should
be kept confidential until introduced in parliament.
Bearing this in mind, the Chair wishes to emphasize that this is not the
first time that a case of this nature has been raised on the
floor of the House.
In fact, a question of privilege with certain similarities to
the present one was before the House on January 18 and 19, 1984.
[English]
I refer members to the ruling Speaker Francis gave on January
19, 1984 and which can be found at page 563 of the Debates.
He stated:
The process of consultation is an important part in the
development of proposals if they are to succeed in the public
interest—
There are any number of situations where drafts of bills have
been circulated and no further action has been taken with regard
to them. Surely the Chair cannot be placed in a position of
determining whether a document or a piece of paper, or whatever
it is—it is certainly not a document of the House—can or cannot
be circulated, or that the Speaker in some way should regulate
the persons to whom such a document could be circulated.
I am of the same opinion as Speaker Francis. Although the
members of the House should always be the first ones to examine
legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time,
this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to
consult both experts and the public when developing its
legislative proposals. The form and content of such legislative
proposals is entirely left to the discretion of the government.
Once introduced and read a first time in the House, the text is
officially made public and the legislative process in parliament
is initiated. The Chair must rule that the matter raised by the
hon. member for Calgary Centre does not constitute a prima facie
case of privilege nor a contempt of parliament.
I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre and all
of the other interveners for raising this matter.
* * *
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
SECOND READING
The House resumed from February 15, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in
relation to benefits and obligations, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate today
regarding Bill C-23. I believe it to be a reasonable and sound
bill. It is after all an administrative bill which promotes the
objectives of the Government of Canada.
I also want to note that several of my colleagues have already
provided compelling arguments for the adoption of this
legislation. They have, and quite rightfully so, noted that the
proposed amendments to modernize benefits and obligations are
fundamentally about fairness.
I also want to note that I will be sharing my time with my
learned friend and a very prominent person, the hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its May 1999 ruling in M. v H. sent
a clear signal that governments cannot limit benefits or
obligations to opposite sex common law relationships. This bill
will ensure that federal laws reflect the values of Canadians,
values that are enshrined in that sacred of documents, the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The modernization of benefits and obligations act will treat
common law same sex relationships and common law opposite sex
relationships equally under the law. The act recognizes that same
sex couples in committed relationships are entitled to the same
benefits and obligations as their unmarried opposite sex
counterparts.
1300
Canadians can be reassured that the proposed legislation does
not change the legal definition of marriage. Marriage is clearly
defined in Canadian law as being the union of two persons of the
opposite sex. Although a few European countries, Denmark, Sweden
and Norway, by way of example, have limited recognition of same
sex relationships, a distinction is maintained in the law between
marriage and same sex relationships.
This legislation is in line with what is happening elsewhere in
the country. Several provinces have already begun to amend their
benefits and obligations legislation. For example, in 1997
British Columbia amended numerous statutes to include same sex
partners. In June of 1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11
regulations to grant to same sex partners the same benefits and
obligations that are available to opposite sex common law
partners. In October 1999, to comply with the supreme court
decision in M. v H., the province of Ontario passed omnibus
legislation to bring 67 statutes in compliance with the ruling,
and it was done within 48 hours.
As well, more than 200 private sector Canadian companies
currently give benefits to their employees' same sex partners, as
do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries and community and
social service institutions across this great country of ours.
Clearly a majority of Canadians acknowledge and accept that same
sex common law couples should have legal rights and obligations
similar to common law couples.
Having said that, it is necessary to make a distinction between
common law and dependency relationships. For example, the
conjugal common law relationship, be it of the opposite or same
sex, is very different from a relationship between members of the
same family or long time roommates. A number of adult Canadians
currently reside with elderly parents, siblings or other
relatives. Extending benefits and obligations to people involved
in all of these forms of relationships would have far-reaching
consequences for individuals and for society as a whole.
Although many federal statutes currently extend limited benefits
and obligations to family relationships, further study is
required to determine if it would be appropriate to treat family
relationships in a similar manner as common law couples in all or
at least in some of the circumstances.
The Minister of Justice, who led off debate last Tuesday on this
very important bill, has referred the question of dependency to a
parliamentary committee where the proper consultation and
discussion can take place. Canadians need to be brought into the
discussion and included in an examination of this issue.
I want to take a little time to outline some of the things that
need to be looked at and discussed. For example, take the case
of an elderly women living with her son and daughter-in-law.
Should the younger couple's combined income be included in the
senior citizen's calculation of her eligibility for the
guaranteed income supplement or under the old age security? I do
not know the answer to that. I think we should find out. Or,
consider the example of children caring for parents in their
home. In one case a daughter supports her widowed father. In
the house next door another woman provides for both her mother
and father. How would we treat these cases? I do not know, but
we should find out.
Would relationships of dependency apply to any two people who
live together or to limited numbers as long as they are under the
same roof? I do not know the answer to that. Again, we need to
find out. Would the government exclude all relatives, as France
does now, or exclude only opposite sex common law couples, as
Hawaii has chosen to do? We need to study that. More to the
point, are Canadians prepared to assume the obligations that are
part and parcel of this legislation? The fact is, the issue goes
far beyond simply extending benefits. Bill C-23 also imposes
obligations.
Our objectives in considering changes to the system should be to
encourage rather than discourage people from taking care of each
other. While benefits which reflect dependency would likely be
welcomed, it is unclear whether the accompanying legal
obligations should be imposed on individuals for those relatives
with whom they reside. This needs further study to know exactly
what that means.
1305
An equally important consideration is that even if such a system
were created at the federal level it would only apply to areas of
federal jurisdiction. Many pieces of legislation that grant
benefits and impose obligations are now divided between or shared
among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. More
and more of our social programs are seamless, necessitating
consultation and co-operation with our provincial and territorial
colleagues and partners. This is exactly what the Minister of
Justice wants to pursue, as announced last Tuesday.
This bill does not preclude discussion which has already
started, and rightfully so. This is a huge and very important
issue, not only to the House but to all Canadians, on whether and
how to acknowledge the nature and reality of the many types of
dependent relationships. The government will carefully examine
the findings of current studies being conducted into this issue.
It seems obvious that there may be many remaining issues to be
resolved. It is important that we take the necessary time to do
our homework and get it right.
In the meantime we have an immediate requirement to extend
benefits and obligations to same sex partners. The supreme court
ruling is clear. It has sent a clear message that same sex
couples must be treated equally to opposite sex common law
couples.
Canadians are a just, fair and honourable people. They do not
like discrimination. They do not like intolerance. They believe
in fairness. They believe in tolerance and equal treatment under
the law. It is now up to us as legislators to ensure that the
laws of the land comply with the direction given to us by the
courts and the court of public opinion. By amending these 68
statutes, affecting some 20 departments and agencies, in one
comprehensive bill we can quickly and efficiently modernize many
laws that are currently out of sync with Canadian values.
I urge all hon. members of the House to vote accordingly and to
endorse this necessary administrative legislation.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the comments of the member opposite.
He brought up a couple of points which I would like him to
clarify. Regarding his plea to have all members of the House vote
for this legislation, I can assure him that I will not be voting
for it.
He mentioned taking direction from the courts. One thing we
must remember is that there was some direction given by the House
last June when it voted to affirm the definition of marriage. I
would like his comments on why that definition is not affirmed in
this legislation.
He mentioned many areas that needed clarification. How are we
going to apply this law when it is based on sexual activity and
when other relationships of dependency are not clarified? How
are we going to do that? If this needs to be done, as I believe
it does, then why have we not opened up this bill to more broad
public input? Would that input not help to solve some of the
problems that he indicated still exist with this legislation?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon.
member that the definition of marriage is already in law. It is
built into the laws of Canada. Therefore, it really is
unnecessary in this instance to reassert it.
In terms of the member's second question, we are not about to
bring in sex police or anything else that he might have alluded
to in terms of enforcement. This is simply an administrative
bill that is a fair bill. It ensures that Canadians, whoever
they are, are treated with tolerance, compassion and respect. We
will do it in a manner consistent with the values that all or at
least most Canadians hold, and it is important that we proceed
accordingly.
Whether it is immigration, Indian affairs, the Nisga'a treaty,
or other issues relating to a whole host of things, it is always
amazing to me to hear Reform members talk in code. They talk in
code in a manner that is inconsistent with the very fundamental
principles of this great country of ours.
Canadians reject outright what they represent and the kind of
nonsense they promote.
1310
We are not about the politics of hatred; we are about the
politics of hope. On the government side we will continue to
maintain the politics of hope because that is what Canadians, who
are fair, tolerant and compassionate, want us to do.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we should perhaps examine what this bill is and what it is not.
It is a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, M v H.
Parliament, under our system of modified separation of powers,
is a co-ordinate institution with the court and must respond to
and accept supreme court decisions in our area of constitutional
competence. The only solution other than that is by way of
constitutional amendment seeking to override a supreme court
decision, and that is a very difficult hurdle; or it is by use of
the notwithstanding clause, and by consensus of parliament all
parties, since the adoption of the charter of rights, accept that
that is not a remedy to be used at the federal level.
We have responded appropriately to the Supreme Court of Canada
decision. It is on that basis that I support this bill, and my
constituents, as good Canadians, understanding that we live under
the rule of law, will do the same.
I say, though, that the nature of the bill, the limited
objective that it has, explains what in terms of legal drafting
might be called a somewhat inelegant, dull or pedestrian
formulation. It is a compendium of 68 different federal laws
which are changed as a result of this bill. It is not, however,
a declaration of same sex rights or a code of new relationships.
That is not its function. It simply establishes certain legal
consequences of same sex relations applying to 68 different areas
of federal responsibility. That is what the bill is about.
Larger issues were thoughtfully raised by the Minister of
Justice and by my colleague, the member of parliament for
Waterloo—Wellington, in his address on the larger issue of the
legal consequences of relations of dependency. It is one of the
interesting things in the multicultural society in which we live,
and which is very much present to me as a member of parliament
for the city of Vancouver, that the new cultural communities have
reaffirmed what has always been part of their heritage but seems
to have disappeared in general in the older Canadian society.
That is the extended family relationship and the notion that
there are categorical imperatives, if we can call them that, of a
moral nature but which are observed even more fully than in a
legal relationship, between parents and their children, in the
relationship of children to support parents, in the relationship
of siblings within a family relationship.
The Minister of Justice promised study of this issue and it is
an idea that seems historically right for reaffirmation. I know
of very many situations of aged parents supported by children. I
know very many situations of unmarried sisters or unmarried
siblings living in support to each other. It is correct, as the
member for Waterloo—Wellington said, that these relationships
will involve, if we are to give legal recognition to them, the
same sort of intricate study of perhaps 68 or even 108 federal
laws, and probably provincial laws, to get an answer, but it need
not be a Kathleen Mavourneen situation, that it may be now or
maybe never with the study. We can rely on enough pressures
within the cabinet and the government to be very sure that when
we speak of a study it will be a very timely study.
There have been problems that have been referred to and I will
simply say that as a lawyer I do not see the same degree of
problem solving difficulty as perhaps some of the people who have
already spoken.
1315
It is said that if one gets into a legal dependency relationship
one may logically lose the benefit of separate income tax filing
benefits that apply to persons operating singly. This is true as
the law stands. It may be a case for changing the law. It may,
however, also be a case for persons seriously considering whether
they wish to offer themselves in a special category of a
dependent relationship deserving recognition by the state,
especially in our taxation laws.
It has been mentioned that people may change their mind. The
son who supports his aged mother may decide enough is enough and
run away. I am afraid if we establish legal dependency relation
privileges and benefits it maybe one of the things we have to put
up with; that we cannot renege unilaterally or casually on a
relationship entered into. These are the sorts of things that an
intelligent legal study by a parliamentary committee, that is now
envisaged for this new type of legal relationship, will get into.
We may also have problems of establishing a bona fide
relationship of dependency. I see this problem existing in
relation to Bill C-23 as it now stands and any future bill on
dependency relationships. It is not an insuperable problem. It
is the sort of thing that a good revenue minister is very well
aware of because revenue ministers aim to catch up with gaps in
the tax system and evasion, fraudulent or otherwise.
What I am saying is that there are problems. They can be
studied in depth but the difficulty of solving them are not
impossible or beyond the capacities of parliamentary committee of
the calibre of an all-party committee set up in this particular
House.
I reaffirm that the relationship of dependency, which the
minister promised to study, is perhaps the most interesting idea
to come out of this particular debate. It is something on which
the new Canadian communities have more to offer the older
Canadian communities and to remind them of obligations that they
have perhaps forgotten too easily, the older communities in the
open society in which we live.
Bill C-23 goes a very important part of the way but it is only
part of the way. We should, in this sense, accept in good faith
the undertaking by the minister and vote for Bill C-23 because it
respects our obligation to respect decisions of the supreme court
and bring federal laws in line in a timely fashion.
I would have drafted it differently. It is a huge bill with 68
different laws but it is an indication of the complexity of the
problem in terms of tidying up the legal details. That work has
been done in this domain and the work in the other domain, the
larger dependency relationship, will take at least as much time.
On that basis, I commend this idea to you, Mr. Speaker. One
could note that in another capacity it seems to me that you, Mr.
Speaker, have expressed ideas very similar to my own.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-23 is an act to modernize the Statues of Canada in relation to
benefits and obligations is an act to ensure that common law
relationships, both opposite and same sex, are treated equally
under the law.
Many Canadians believed that this was already the practice in
Canada, just as they believed that pay equity was already
established. Canadians have had their eyes opened over the last
few years as we New Democrats in the House of Commons have had to
constantly, week after week, remind the government of its
obligations to follow the law and to treat people equally and
fairly.
The changes in Bill C-23 are about fairness. They will ensure
that in keeping with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in May
1999 same sex common law couples have the same obligations and
benefits as opposite sex common law couples. The act will ensure
that same sex couples have the same access as other Canadian
couples to social benefits programs to which they have
contributed.
This legislation is supported by 70% of Canadians.
As Canadians we recognize the diverse makeup of families in
Canada. We have come to understand and support same sex partners
who are committed to each other and their families. With that
commitment comes the right to equal and fair treatment inferred
by legislation in this country.
1320
This act is not about special rights, as some in the House would
suggest. It is not about special treatment. It is about
fairness and equality, responsibility and accountability.
I know the government has a hard time with those words when it
comes to taxpayer dollars, but in this act that it what is
intended: responsibility and accountability.
The bill is a long overdue response by the government to the
supreme court. It is a long overdue recognition of same sex
couples. The supreme court case, M v H, which led to this act,
was about support payments after the breakdown of a same sex
relationship: commitment, responsibility and accountability.
The changes to legislation as a result of the bill are not about
money. In fact the finance department estimates that changes to
the Income Tax Act to extend conjugal obligations to same sex
couples will lead to an additional $10 million in revenues for
the federal government. I am surprised this did not come about
sooner, as we see the government trying to get as many dollars as
it can through EI and CPP surpluses and numerous other reasons.
These changes will save taxpayers and litigants expensive court
battles which are the result of out of date and contradictory
legislation. Some 68 acts will be amended as a result. I will
mention just a few: the Employment Insurance Act, the Family
Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act, the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security
Acts.
Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation.
Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes,
including six core statutes to add same sex couples. In June
1999 Quebec amended 28 statutes and 11 regulations to grant same
sex couples the same benefits and obligations that are available
to opposite sex common law couples. In October 1999, to comply
with the supreme court decision, Ontario passed omnibus
legislation to bring 67 statutes into compliance with the ruling.
Parliament passed legislation, Bill C-78, that 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. As well, the majority of large cities
in Canada and more than 200 private sector Canadian companies
currently provide benefits to the same sex partner of their
employees, as do many municipalities, hospitals, libraries, and
social service institutions across Canada.
It is important to note that the Immigration Act will not be
amended with this legislation. It is understood that
requirements for such recognition are distinct from other
benefits. However, the minister of immigration has indicated a
willingness to address this issue and New Democrats urge the
government to move quickly on this act.
The majority of Canadians support the legislation. It is a step
in the right direction. I and my New Democratic Party colleagues
will be supporting the bill.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think it is about time we cleared the air a little bit about some
of the rhetoric.
The bill does not create equality. For that reason alone this
member should be voting against the bill. It is not equal
because same gender couples, heterosexual and homosexual, must
wait for one year before they qualify for benefits. It is not
equal to married couples and the definition of marriage will not
be changed in the legislation. The definition of marriage, under
the common law of Canada, is defined as a union between a man and
a woman to the exclusion of all others.
The member is absolutely incorrect. This does not create
equality. Many people have said that in the next step they will
go after marriage. I can tell the House today that there is no
question in my mind that the vast majority of the members of the
House will not support the change in the definition of marriage.
The member refers to a cost of $10 million and that somehow the
government should have moved quicker on this.
The facts are that only 1.6% of all same sex partners will ever
qualify for benefits under the changes proposed in this
legislation. Officials have estimated that the government will
make money on the changes because things like the GST credit will
no longer extend to two persons but rather to only one
partnership in which the partner income will be a clawback
determinant.
1325
Let us be clear. This bill is not about equality between same
sex partners and married persons. It is very different. The
member should acknowledge that because there is a discriminatory
clause that says that there is a one year waiting period which
will exclude 98.6% of all same sex partners she should be voting
against the bill.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, seeing as that member is
from the governing side, I think he should look to his minister
to get clarity on the issue. She has spoken in a different tone
and has indicated that the bill is about equality and fairness.
It is no surprise that on the government side one hand does not
know what the other hand is doing.
I agree that the bill does not ensure total equality for
everyone. The member is absolutely right. That is at fault in
the legislation and we will work hard to ensure that equality.
The issue here is not about marriage. The issue is about
benefits for same sex couples to ensure they are treated fairly
under the legislation.
There is no question that there needs to be some serious work on
that side of the House when members on the backbench come out on
one side saying that this is not about equality and fairness and
the frontbench ministers saying that it is all about equality and
fairness.
As I said, it is no surprise to hear the government speaking one
way and then another way. It is whatever fits the mould.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am here today to speak in favour of Bill C-23.
The provisions of the bill are not only a reaction to the recent
supreme court decision but, I would suggest, also reflects the
need to acknowledge the contemporary reality of relationships
that are not exclusively unions between men and women. I think
the spirit of the bill is closely tied to a sense of fairness,
tolerance and equality.
I will specifically address a few points that require some
clarification. First, there is a misconception that the bill
alters the institution of marriage and the definition of spouse.
Second, the bill simply brings the federal government up to date
with other governments and the private sector in expanding
benefits and obligations to adults engaged in same sex common law
relationships.
Third, it is wrong to think that extending benefits will create
added or undue physical burdens on the federal treasury and the
taxpayer.
Finally, I think it is necessary to point out that the supreme
court recently made a ruling that suggested that the federal
government might enact statutes that are compatible with that
court's rulings and the charter of rights specifically.
The bill and the legal interpretation confirm that changes the
bill would bring would not alter the definition of marriage.
Marriage would still be defined as the union between a man and a
woman with all its past and contemporary legal applications
intact. We should point out that Canadian courts, academics and
ordinary citizens have continuously reaffirmed the first 1866
British court case definition of marriage as being the union of
one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
I would like to digress here by saying that there was also a
1970 House of Lords decision on this very point, the case of
Corbett v Corbett, where the individual, who appeared to be a
woman had in fact been a man. On the basis of genetics, the
court decided that a man was always a man notwithstanding what he
appeared to be otherwise. To this day, Canadian courts have
upheld the constitutionality of this definition.
1330
Similarly, under the legislation the term spouse will only refer
to a married man and woman. Marital status will remain
unaltered. Any existing federal statutes that include the term
spouse will still only apply to married couples. It is wrong to
suggest that the provisions of Bill C-23 will alter the existing
legal definitions with respect to the term marriage and all that
that entails.
I suggest that some would try to use the legislation so that it
might have the effect of turning back the clock to a time when
social prejudice forced same sex relationships into the shadows.
I would like to think as a society we pride ourselves on openness
and compassion and that to ignore reality that is as old as time
is not appropriate.
I think of one province in particular. An individual who taught
in a school was given high approval ratings as a teacher until
such time as it was learned by his employer that the individual
was in fact gay. The terms of his dismissal were exclusively on
the basis of his sexual orientation. In that province it was
allowed to pass because, as I understand it, there was no
legislation to protect the individual. I would think as a
contemporary society and as a federal government we are long past
that.
I am also told that public opinion surveys indicate that
Canadians by a two to one margin believe that same sex couples
should have access to the same benefits and be subject to the
same obligations as any man or woman presently engaged in a
spousal or opposite sex common law relationship. I ask those who
are opposed to the bill to canvass their constituents to gain an
accurate composite of opinion in their constituencies.
I understand there are people who are opposed to the bill. I
think that in the House most who oppose it do so on the basis of
belief systems and value systems. We have to look beyond our own
individual belief or value systems to the wider, larger picture.
It is also reasonable to expect that same sex couples should be
treated in the same way as other conjugal relationships. The
time is long past when it was acceptable to characterize same sex
relationships as deviant or odd, as some people would call them,
or acts of rebellion against social conformity. Same sex
relationships for some are just as natural and regular as other
types of relationships and it is not for us to treat them
otherwise. That opinion reflects my views on the matter.
Last year in the city of Sarnia in my riding there was the first
gay pride parade. I was approached about participating. I had
no problem whatsoever; I am not so insecure as to be afraid of a
gay pride parade and I participated in it. The shame of the
whole thing was that not one other elected person in my riding
was present, municipal or provincial; they could not find a
councillor, a mayor or anyone who would go in the parade. There
were 500 people in the city of Sarnia who participated in that
parade. I was quite proud to be there.
I am not so insecure as to think that if I went to the parade
that somebody would start a whisper campaign. My mother said to
me that if I went to the parade, people may say things about me.
The next day I happened to go to another event at the Polish
Combatants Association. I called my mother and said that I was
concerned that people were starting to whisper saying they
thought I was Polish.
My children who are in university and below were quite proud of
me that I would go to the gay pride parade. In this country
there is a continuum of opinion, but I think a part of it is
related to age. Young people understand that there is equality
in this country, that we are not all made the same and that we
cannot all be the same. It is like fingerprints; no two are the
same. In this continuum of relationships, one could argue in
this continuum of sexuality, young people inherently understand
that if somebody is different from someone else, it is not a big
deal.
It is not a criterion on which we want to discriminate or even to
point out differences.
1335
My children were quite proud that I would participate. I felt it
was important to show everyone that alternative lifestyle choices
are in some respect mainstream, no big deal, or nothing to get
upset about and that they crosscut every facet of social
identities. Alternative lifestyles, although not perhaps my
lifestyle, are valid. There is no legal, social, fiscal or
political reason to treat those choices as anything else but
legitimate.
Bill C-23 is being described by some, and it is fair to make
comment, as trend-setting or innovative because several provincial
governments, including good old Ontario, that hotbed of liberal
thought, British Columbia and Quebec have similar same sex laws.
Also, in my riding private sector companies such as Dow Chemical
have had them for a number of years. Large corporations in
particular have been extending benefits to same sex couples for
some time.
There has also been some expression of concern with respect to
the confusion between federal and provincial laws, in other
words, the federal statutes would in some way cause confusion
with the provincial statutes. I fail to understand how this
would be the case because proposed federal legislation will only
affect existing federal statutes. Provincial laws fall under
corresponding provincial jurisdiction.
Just as the proposed federal legislation will not impact on
provincial jurisdictions, it will not affect private sector
companies nor non-governmental organizations. In fact over 200
companies and organizations in the private sector have already
extended benefits to adults in same gender relationships, as have
many municipalities, quasi-governmental organizations such as
some hospitals and other public or municipal institutions such as
libraries.
Bill C-23 brings us up to the same level of benefit coverage
that is available in several other provincial jurisdictions and
in the private and municipal sectors. Even if the supreme court
ruling had never been handed down, I would suggest it would have
been odd that the federal government not introduce legislation
similar to what is included in Bill C-23.
There has also been some talk that by extending benefits to same
sex couples, an undue fiscal burden would be placed upon the
federal government. This legislation aside, certainly when
legislation is introduced for which there may be a fiscal
implication, it is a fair question to ask having regard to the
cost of a piece of legislation, having regard to the sector of
the population which may be touched by the legislation, what the
overall cost is, what it means to the taxpayer, the taxpayer
being somebody whose sexual orientation is not even known. It is
important to study fiscal implications of any bill regardless of
a person's sexual orientation.
1340
In this case, if we take the time to examine the bill and
consider the overall ramifications, we come to the conclusion
that the changes would be revenue neutral. It is important to
remember that while the provisions of Bill C-23 extend benefits,
which is one thing the public has latched onto, they also extend
obligations to same gender couples. Any financial gain a couple
would have gained would likely be offset by a higher taxation
obligation, as a different status would require such things as
income to be assessed jointly rather than separately.
I am sure there are cases where one could make the argument that
in a particular instance there is a benefit to this. But we are
talking about the overall envelope and what the Department of
Finance has studied and what it has concluded.
Another example of obligation is how the GST credit can be
claimed. Currently two individuals involved in a same sex
relationship can individually claim two separate GST credits and
file two separate income tax returns based on separate individual
incomes, increasing the combined value that their credits are
worth. Under the bill this practice would not be permitted.
Extended benefits would likely beget higher total taxation
obligations. In this case any extra money flowing out of the
treasury to cover the cost of extended benefits would be recouped
by the added money that would come in on the revenue side. All
indications are that this is a revenue neutral matter.
What would cost taxpayers money would be the ensuing legal costs
of contesting personal discrimination suits that could be
launched because of federal government refusal to conform with
the charter of rights and freedoms. Those who oppose this
legislation might address this concern. There is a rising
awareness in this country of the importance of the charter and of
its application in a myriad of situations, this general round
being one of them.
This brings me to my final point. I would respect anyone's
right to oppose this bill but we should consider the consequences
of not proceeding with it. I want to emphasize that I understand
that there are people who see this from a different perspective.
I appreciate that. I might have been the same way at some point
in the past. I understand people's right to oppose this because
of their religious beliefs and value system. I completely
understand that. I am not saying that mine is superior to
theirs. I just think that at the moment this is where the
mainstream and the majority of Canadians are.
Bill C-23 fits in with the overall philosophy of fairness that
the government ascribes to. We must not lose sight of last
year's supreme court ruling that gave effect to this bill. It
prodded it along. In M v H the supreme court ruled that
governments cannot limit benefits and obligations to married and
opposite sex common law relationships. If this bill had not been
introduced, or if the House chooses to defeat it, we must
understand that the federal government's general operations would
run afoul of this constitutional obligation as laid out by the
charter.
Our constitutional system demands that its governments strictly
adhere to its precepts and that includes the charter of rights of
freedoms. It would not be able to operate indefinitely without
doing so. One can argue that if it did, a constitutional crisis
could develop. That might be taking it a distance, but it
undermines the respect for the charter. No government can
operate outside the constitutional box for that long. For this
reason Bill C-23 is necessary.
I would like to think that this is not a piece of legislation
that has been ordered, that the supreme court has held a gun to
our head saying that we must do this. The supreme court is there
to tell us whether a piece of legislation is consistent with the
charter, whether it is consistent with the spirit intent of the
charter, and whether a particular piece of legislation which is
sensitive to the rights of minorities in this country, stands up
to that very important standard as laid down in the charter.
The bill simply brings us into line with what the supreme court
has interpreted.
1345
It is fair for some people to say that the Supreme Court of
Canada should not be telling the Parliament of Canada what to do,
and I agree. In this place we can ultimately decide what we are
to do, but we should be mindful of the charter. Unless there is
some overriding reason to opt out of the charter, and I suggest
that would have to be a very severe case, we should be mindful at
all times of the rules of fairness, equity and equality. The
only way we could ever get out of it is by invoking the
notwithstanding clause and in this case it would a no-go, a
drastic response.
If we were to operate indefinitely by invoking the
notwithstanding clause every time certain interests suggest we
should, we would end up undoubtedly questioning the legitimacy of
the charter which guarantees the rights we hold very close as a
democratic society and as citizens of Canada.
Some might choose to diminish the supreme court ruling by
trotting out the bogeyman of judge made law or by saying the
supreme court interpreted the charter in the wrong way and
therefore the House can ignore it, just disregard it.
This line of thought is extremely dangerous. By deploying such
characterizations critics are effectively delegitimizing the
entire judicial system by suggesting that some legal rulings are
not as sound as others. For our constitutional system to work we
must faithfully accept that rulings made by the Canadian
judiciary are sound and appropriately reflect the present meaning
of the constitution.
I reiterate that there may be some point in the future where the
supreme court makes a ruling that flies in the face of all logic,
flies in the face of where we are as a country. There may be
that odd ball exception every 10, 15, 50 or 100 years where the
notwithstanding clause could be invoked, but this is clearly not
the case.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to address the
House on this matter. I hope by offering my views on Bill C-23
that I have been able to allay some concerns people in my riding
have expressed to me. I welcome any questions or comments at
this time.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appeal to the professional knowledge and legal background of the
hon. member opposite who just spoke. I am sure it is extensive
because I have watched him in other arenas. The hon. gentleman
deserves to be commended for some of the things he has done. I
also commend him for his independence from time to time. He does
say things a little differently than some of his colleagues.
I appeal to the member's interpretation of the 1999 supreme
court decision in Ontario in the M and H case. The court
struck down a provision in the Ontario family law act defining
spouses as married persons or partners in a heterosexual
relationship who have lived together for more than three years.
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude same sex
couples from the second category but it left the issue of
marriage untouched.
I would like to ask the hon. member three questions. First,
does he agree that the supreme court left the issue of marriage
untouched? Second, would he agree that the bill on a legal basis
changes the status of marriage vis-à-vis where it stands at the
present time? Should Bill C-23 be cognizant of and take into
account what was passed in June 1999 when the definition of
marriage was endorsed whole heartedly by the House as being a
union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others? Could
the member address those questions?
1350
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
those questions. There is a certain level of fear that is not
based upon any reality.
Let us look at this piece of legislation in a continuum of time.
Who would have thought 30 or 40 years ago that we would be in
this place talking about something that is popularly referred to
as gay rights? Who would have thought 25 years ago that there
would be a movement not just in Canada but on this continent that
would be called the gay rights movement? It was inconceivable,
but we have to recognize that society is changing, certain
values, beliefs and attitudes. Attitudes tie into the belief
system and value system.
Marriage is a relatively old institution. The basic institution
called marriage will not be undone in this place or in a
provincial House because of a social movement which may have
started 20 years ago or because of changes in attitude toward
people who are generally referred to as homosexual or lesbian.
That will not destroy the institution of marriage.
There is concern expressed that one day the nine judges of the
Supreme Court of Canada will wake up and say that this has been
around for 20 years, that they have read about it in newspapers
and that they will undo marriage. The supreme court is not about
to undo marriage. The only way that marriage can be undone is
through the collective action of this House and the 10 provincial
houses.
When a man and a woman are about to enter into a marriage, who
lays down the regulations about who can marry? It is the
provinces. They dictate everything from who is qualified to
perform a marriage. I cannot perform a marriage but I have some
friends in the clergy who are licensed to do so.
The provinces also lay down degrees of consanguinity which deal
with my being unable to marry my sister or my first cousin. The
idea that this place or the nine justices down the street will
wake up one day and say that marriage is over after eons of
civilization is slightly paranoid. Marriage is defined not only
by the courts but most recently reaffirmed in the House a year
ago. There is a conspiracy theory, which is the toughest to deal
with. There is an ongoing whisper campaign that somehow we will
overturn it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for his
speech on this very important piece of legislation and raise a
couple of points he referenced in it.
The first concerns the fact that some individuals would like to
portray this debate, this issue, this bill, as trend setting,
groundbreaking and innovative. I wonder if it makes more sense
to portray the legislation in terms of housekeeping and necessary
work on our part to bring federal statutes in line with the
values of Canadians and with numerous judicial and legislative
rulings in the country to date.
The second point is the fact that the member referenced
differences of opinion on the whole issue of extending the
benefits to same sex couples that exist now to opposite sex
couples. He referenced that there were differences that should
be respected. I agree with that.
However, I wonder if he shares our concern that positions have
been stated in the House which are thinly veiled attempts to
promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. I wonder if we are really talking about
acknowledging the rights of every person in the country to
participate as equal citizens and about ensuring we acknowledge
loving and committed relationships whether they are same sex or
opposite sex.
1355
Mr. Roger Gallaway: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
opposite for those questions. On the question of housekeeping I
totally agree. I recall in the last parliament we amended the
federal rights act regarding employees of federal institutions.
That was also regarded as an attack upon the institution of
marriage. Even in my moments of free association I could not
make that connection. As I pointed out, there are provinces that
have already enacted similar legislation.
In the case of the earlier legislation we were 12 years behind
some provinces. We were 10 years behind good old Ontario and 12
years or thereabouts behind the province of Quebec. It is
housekeeping. We are getting caught up although in this case we
are not terribly behind in terms of the pack.
With respect to the other point made, this is about a societal
shift. We have become more aware of society saying that people
who are labelled homosexual or lesbian are part of society. They
are just as important and equally vital to society. They should
be recognized as part of society and extended the same benefits
and obligations as those we extend to others who happen not to be
homosexual and happen to be something called heterosexual.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being nearly 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HERITAGE DAY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is Heritage Day, a special day set aside each year
to recognize and increase awareness of the country's diverse
heritage.
Each Heritage Day celebrates a different aspect of the people,
places and events that have helped to shape our country. This
year's theme is our farming heritage and it focuses on two areas:
the heritage of place, the buildings and the sites across Canada
that reflect our farming history, and the important story of the
growth and production of food in Canada.
In my riding on Saturday, February 19, I had the pleasure of
co-hosting the Heritage Day celebrations at the Parkdale Public
Library. Our celebrations began with the Parkdale Collegiate
Institute ensemble, followed by performances by the Portuguese,
Tamil, Indian, Mexican and Estonian communities.
The afternoon gave my constituents the opportunity to celebrate
and share in the country's diverse heritage by celebrating the
diverse and rich cultures of our country.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, with only three days until the opening ceremonies of the
B.C. Winter Games, get ready for the snow to fly. The city of
Quesnel is proud to host the year 2000 winter games.
British Columbia is known for its winters and especially for its
winter sports. Many athletes who have honed their skills at the
B.C. Winter Games go on to represent their province at the Canada
Winter Games. More than 2,000 athletes from across B.C. will
compete in over 20 events.
I commend the more than 1,600 volunteers busily preparing the
food, accommodation, transportation and security arrangements
necessary to welcome athletes, coaches, parents and chaperones to
Quesnel and to what surely will be one of the best winter games
ever.
I am pleased to be attending the games. I am particularly proud
to participate in the opening ceremonies and to bring greetings
and best wishes from all of Canada. We congratulate the people
of Quesnel, British Columbia, and all the athletes and volunteers
for the months and years of preparation, and now this festival of
competition and camaraderie. The spirit lives on.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week, our Prime Minister inaugurated the
secretariat of the Summit of the Americas, which is to prepare
the event planned for April 20 to 22, 2001, in Quebec City.
The summit will bring together the heads of the countries and
governments of this hemisphere.
1400
In addition, this event will be the high point of two years of
important events organized by Canada, beginning with the Pan
American games in 1999.
Canada was chosen at the previous summit, in 1998, held in
Santiago, Chile. In the middle of last May, Mr. Chrétien made
the choice of Quebec City official.
Thirty-four heads of state and government are expected in Quebec
City. It may be justifiably proud of being chosen to host this
event, and we wish the organizers of the summit every success.
The Speaker: I would remind the member that we must use only the
name of the riding or the title of the member.
* * *
INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to inform you that the municipality of
Kuujjuaq, in Nunavik, has been chosen to host the general
meeting of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in 2002.
I would like to recognize the hard work done by Johnny Adams,
the president of the Kativik Regional Government, Michael
Gordon, the mayor of Kuujjuaq, Pita Aatami, the president of the
Makivik Corporation and their team, in making Kuujjuaq the host
city for this meeting.
My hearty congratulations to the Inuit of Nunavik.
* * *
[English]
BUDGET 2000
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will soon bring down budget
2000, the first of this newborn century. The Government of
Canada has assured us that it will be a balanced budget with a
balanced approach, a budget that will set out a multi-year tax
reduction plan and one that invests in children, knowledge,
creativity, innovation, environment and health.
This balanced approach reflects the Prime Minister's vision of
the Canada of the 21st century: “Where prosperity is not
limited to the few, but shared by the many; where every child
gets the right start in life—young people have the chance to be
the best—and citizens have access to the skills and knowledge
they need to excel. Where citizens—regardless of
income—receive quality health services”.
The Prime Minister has spoken and we share his vision. Budget
2000 will make Canada the place to be in this new century.
Indeed the Minister of Finance will deliver.
* * *
HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is Canada's Heritage Day. Canada is a country with a rich
history and heritage. This year we are celebrating our farming
heritage.
The rural culture today is at risk. Farmers in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan need farm disaster relief.
Safe firearm use on farms is also a part of the rural culture.
Today Canadians celebrate the contributions of our aboriginals
an Inuit peoples, our pioneers who opened up this land and our
men and women who laid down their lives in times of war so we can
live in a free society.
Canada must show the courage to acknowledge the bleak moments of
history, such as the internment of the Ukrainians at the turn of
the century and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1923.
Today we celebrate our heritage knowing that all Canadians,
wherever they originated, have made significant contributions in
building this country. Our history reflects this diversity.
This history must be passed on to all Canadians, young and old.
* * *
HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
we celebrate Canada's Heritage Day.
Canadians are well aware that our country's heritage is unique.
It reflects our shared and diverse symbols, the languages we
speak, our natural and historic sites, the special places of
aboriginal people in Canada, and the diverse groups who have
built this great country.
This diversity is certainly evident in my riding of
Simcoe—Grey. Expressing our heritage means promoting a
plurality of choices. It means encouraging the individuals who
create as well as those who form audiences. It includes building
the capacity of our institutions, communities and industries to
promote out culture. It means connecting Canadians to one
another and to the world.
Following question period today in Room 200 of the West Block
the Audio-Visual Preservation Trust will unveil 12 audio-visual
pieces of Canada's heritage that have been preserved and restored
for future generations. As a member of parliament on the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage I encourage all members
to attend this event.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for several
weeks now, the Bloc Quebecois has been questioning the
government about its haste in passing Bill C-20, but has not
received any useful answer.
1405
On Friday, the group Pro-démocratie criticized the government's
haste, adding:
While it is true that Ottawa has made a habit of resorting to
unilateralism, denial of justice and rights, and repeated
violations of ethics, we will never get used to it.
On the contrary, we will always condemn this—After 1982, after
the tens of millions of dollars spent on the 1980, 1992 and 1995
referendum debates, after the unilateral adoption of the social
union framework, after all these violations of fair play and
ethics, we want to condemn this most recent show of force and
ask for the withdrawal of Bill C-20, because this bill is an
attempt by the federal government to set the rules and to
subordinate the people of Quebec to its authority, when in fact
the people of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over these
issues.
The message could not be any clearer.
* * *
[English]
HERITAGE DAY
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Canada's
Heritage Day 2000.
Each Heritage Day celebrates a different aspect of the places,
people and events which have helped to shape our country. This
year the theme is “Our Farming Heritage”.
One of the oldest sectors of the economy, farming in Canada is a
story of nation building. Much of Canada was first settled by
farmers. The historic patterns of farm settlement and
distinctive farm buildings in the various regions of Canada are
permanent features of our landscape.
Today more than 98% of all the farms in Canada remain family
owned and operated. Agriculture has contributed significantly to
Canada's wealth, despite the fact that only 3% of Canada's
population farms and only 6.8% of land in Canada is being farmed.
Being one of our top five industries, agri-food is also one of
the most dynamic, high tech industries. It provides a wide range
of high quality products from all of Canada's regions, playing a
vital role in the strength of our economy and making significant
contributions to rural communities.
I am proud to celebrate our farming heritage today and encourage
Canadians to do so throughout the year.
* * *
FIREARMS ACT
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the debate of Bill C-68 in 1995 the justice
minister appeared before the standing committee on justice and
testified that he had consulted with the provinces.
Today we have six provinces and two territories challenging Bill
C-68 in the Supreme Court of Canada. Four provinces have even
refused to help the federal government implement the fatally
flawed law.
The former justice minister's consultation with the provinces
was a complete and utter failure. The current justice minister's
failure to ignore reality is just adding insult to injury.
In 1995 the Liberals ignored reality by ramming Bill C-68
through parliament. Now they are trying to ram it down the
provinces' throats. This is the Liberals' style of co-operative
federalism.
The government claims the registry is a success because of all
the firearms licences it has refused and revoked, and all the gun
sales it has blocked. Better background checks are responsible
for this new success. The firearms registry contributes
absolutely nothing. It is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
* * *
UJJAL DOSANJH
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, New Democrats celebrate Heritage Day today with a
special sense of pride.
Yesterday B.C. New Democrats made history by electing Ujjal
Dosanjh as leader of the party and premier of the province. This
is a remarkable accomplishment for a poor boy from a dusty
village in Punjab, India, who is blazing a trail as the first
person of colour to be elected to lead a government in Canada.
There is today a feeling of tremendous pride and honour in the
Sikh and Indo-Canadian communities, and indeed among all
Canadians, at this historic breakthrough.
Ujjal Dosanjh is a leader of great honesty and integrity, a man
who will provide, in his words, “cool leadership in a hot
province”.
To Ujjal Dosanjh, his wife Raminder and his three sons, we
extend our congratulations and respect for this historic
breakthrough, and we look forward to many, many years of strong,
progressive leadership of the great province of British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
GÉRALD LAROSE
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, we saw the acrobatics of Gérald Larose, from
Pro-démocratie, when he appeared before the committee on Bill
C-20.
At the CSN, a union can only disaffiliate itself with the
support of an absolute majority of the members paying dues, not
a majority of those who vote. So, this is not the same as the
famous 50% plus one rule, which they keep telling us about as if
it were the only existing democratic rule.
When asked about this, Mr. Larose made the following leap of
logic: a vote for Quebec sovereignty would be comparable to a
union affiliation, not a disaffiliation. Separating from the
Canada that we know would be equivalent to joining a renewed
Canada. Therefore, 50% plus one would be enough.
Such illogical reasoning can only be based on one premise, which
was stated by Mr. Larose. According to him, Quebec never joined
Canada and is not part of it. The Bloc Quebecois should
dissociate itself from such witnesses, who do not even recognize
that Quebec is part of Canada.
When one denies reality, one can only be headed for a dead end.
* * *
1410
MINISTER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the bits
and pieces of information on the mess at Human Resources
Development Canada that are still coming out endlessly, it seems
that the federal government's incompetence knows no limits.
Yet the person responsible for the department in the worst part
of the boondoggle, the hon. member for Papineau—Saint-Denis, is
making himself scarce in order to avoid having to account for
his erratic administration.
In an interview with Le Devoir, when he was no longer Minister
of Human Resources Development, he did not hold back from
commenting on the situation at Emploi-Québec and from boasting of
his extraordinary talents and effective management.
He went so far as to criticize the Quebec Treasury Board for
controlling everything. Today, we realize the situation on the
federal level is totally the opposite: the federal government
controls nothing.
Where is this minister today, he who usually has so much to say?
He is in hiding. But he cannot hide indefinitely. It is all
very well for the Minister of International Trade to creep along
the walls, hide behind each and every column in the Parliament
Buildings, but the day will come when he will have to answer for
his actions. Impunity and democracy are incompatible.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to rise to announce that I will be hosting a town hall meeting on
the topic of national unity.
The meeting will be held Thursday, February 24, at 7.30 p.m., in
the Markham Civic Centre and will feature a panel discussion
among some of the leading figures on the question of national
unity.
Panellists for my event will include: Senator Noel Kinsella, my
colleagues from the ridings of Beauharnois—Salaberry and
Vancouver Quadra, Professor Nelson Wiseman and Thomas Mulcair.
Our moderator for the panel discussion will be the Hon. Bob Rae.
Town hall meetings are important because they represent my
effort to keep Canadians, and Markham residents, well informed.
My town hall meetings offer an invaluable forum in which my
constituents can learn about and express their views on national
issues of the day.
It is my pleasure to extend the warmest invitation to my
colleagues in the House to join me, my constituents and our
guests for what promises to be an enlightened discussion. And,
yes, I invite the member for Waterloo—Wellington.
* * *
[Translation]
HERITAGE DAY
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we are
celebrating Heritage Day. Our Canadian heritage is a reflection
of our pride as Canadians, our loyalty to our country, our
feeling that we are honoured to be citizens of the best country
in the world.
[English]
Our Canadian heritage is the link between our people from coast
to coast to coast, regardless of sex, race or religious belief.
Our heritage explains our past, creates our present and paves the
way to our future.
I urge all Canadians to take the time to explore this great
country which I and my family have adopted.
[Translation]
Let us all take time to visit our national historical sites and
monuments. Let us take time to introduce our children to their
country in all of its beauty.
Let us protect our heritage for the future of all of our
children.
* * *
[English]
HEART AND STROKE MONTH
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
February is heart and stroke month and many Canadians' lives have
been or will be affected by congenital heart defect, CHD, which
is ranked as the most common birth defect, affecting an estimated
one in 100 children.
While many of these children have repairable heart defects and
require no surgery, at least half will face one, if not many
surgeries in their lifetime.
My constituents, Michael and Carol Ferry, have a daughter,
Natalie, who was born with a severe and complex heart defect.
Just 18 months old, Natalie will soon be preparing for her third
and hopefully final surgery.
Canadians give generously every February in support of the Heart
and Stroke Foundation. As a result, ongoing medical advances in
the next decade could surpass all progress made during the last
century, which will help to ensure that children with CHD, such
as Natalie Ferry, will lead a rich, full and normal life.
* * *
CHURCHILL
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I pay tribute to individuals and organizations
involved in two momentous events that took place in my riding on
January 28 of this year.
Sixty-eight men and women became the first graduating class from
the University of Victoria child care vision initiative program.
The program saw instructors from the University of Victoria take
their program to 13 communities in my riding.
If the students would have had to attend classes on campus it
would have cost $2 million. Through this innovative approach the
cost was $311,000.
Graduates received their diplomas in early childhood education.
Congratulations to the graduates and instructors, the University
of Victoria, the Awasis Agency and the Manitoba Keewatinowi
Okimakanak.
This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the annual Knights
of Columbus indoor track meet. This event, sponsored by the
Knights of Columbus, with the support of its members, teachers,
students and community volunteers, promotes healthy competition
between elementary schools in Thompson.
To mark this silver anniversary, for the first time special
needs students were able to participate.
In a special event, relay spectators were treated to a photo
finish.
1415
Congratulations athletes, the Knights of Columbus, teachers and
other volunteers. What a great start to the millennium.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the HRD minister told the House “I confirm again that I
wrote to my deputy and indicated that she would be the sole
decision maker in terms of projects that were approved in the
riding of Brant”. But that letter said absolutely nothing about
approval authority.
I would like to ask, who was approving these grants?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify three things. First and
foremost, no rules were broken in the application of grants and
contributions in the riding of Brant.
Second, with regard to transitional jobs fund money and Canada
jobs funds, the terms and conditions were met in every case.
Third and in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines, it was
the deputy minister who approved Canada jobs fund money in the
riding of Brant in November.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is a nice try but she wrote a letter that was simply not
true. The deputy minister already had signing authority, and we
know that. What we are concerned about is actual approval
authority. The minister remained the only person who could
actually approve those grants to her riding, yet she tried to
blame it on her deputy.
The minister said that her letter delegated approval authority
to her deputy minister. It did not. How long does the minister
think this trick can last?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no blame because the terms and
conditions were not breached. No rules were broken.
What did happen with these grants and contributions was that men
and woman, who otherwise would not have had the opportunity, are
now working and are very thankful.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I know some people who are not thankful today and those are the
taxpayers who are paying a huge amount of cash to look after the
minister's insatiable desire.
She says that there is no blame here whatsoever. She pretended
she knew nothing about this $1 billion boondoggle for months
before she actually let on. She pretended that her riding
actually qualified for grants when she knew full well that it did
not. Now she is pretending that it is her deputy minister who
makes all the decisions.
When will the pretend minister stand up and say that she takes
ministerial responsibility for this boondoggle?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again misrepresents the
issues before the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon.
minister to please stay away from those kinds of words. The hon.
Minister of Human Resources Development Canada.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member
makes reference to the fact that $1 billion is missing.
Let me convey again to the House that today at the request of
members of parliament and the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development Canada, we have issued the equivalent of
10,000 pages of information that documents the grants and
contributions in every single riding of members in the House.
The opposition is wrong to suggest that $1 billion is missing.
It is all there.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
week the human resources minister told the House that she had
granted her deputy minister the authority to approve CJF grants
in the minister's riding.
Now we know that simply was not the case and that the deputy
minister had only been given signing authority. There is a huge
difference.
Why did the minister tell the House that she had granted the
deputy minister the sweeping powers that go with approval
authority when that simply was not the case?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because it is true. Indeed, it was done
in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a huge discrepancy between what she told the House last
week and what was revealed in that letter. The minister has been
unable to satisfactorily explain this big difference and why she
told the House something and then revealed something completely
different in a letter.
Given this gaping contradiction between what she has told the
House and what was revealed in that letter, how can the public
and this place have any confidence at all in anything the
minister says?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the public cannot have any
confidence in anything that this party says. It has continually
talked about the missing $1 billion.
Today, in the context of all the grants and contributions that
have been identified in ridings of members across the country,
that has proven to be wrong.
1420
Day after day, the Reform Party talks about these grants and
contributions as being about politics, when indeed they are about
people. It will find, if it takes the time to read the lists
that have been provided, that we are supporting individuals in
need in ridings of every member of the House.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says one thing and then the opposite.
He says that Bill C-20 is very important and then he says that it
is a minor bill that does not merit our spending nights debating
it.
If Bill C-20 is so important to him, why did the Liberal members
have a gag order tabled in committee after the first three
witnesses were heard?
The Speaker: As members know, these are questions for the
committee; I do not know if someone on the government side—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not know if someone from the
government side can respond. But if they can, I give them
permission to do so.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the hon. leader
of the Bloc Quebecois and his colleagues on a number of
occasions, the government has already been very flexible.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Don Boudria: We agreed to define the term technical witness
broadly. We agreed to have the deliberations of the committee
broadcast and so on.
Naturally, we want to co-operate with the opposition, so long as
this does not delay the work of the parliamentary committee.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
introducing closure after hearing three witnesses is a first.
It has never been done after three witnesses.
There are unreasonable time frames given for the witnesses'
travel to Ottawa.
Is it the government's intention to turn this committee into a
show, to bulldoze all deliberations on the pretext of quickly
passing this bill, and to prevent people from coming to testify,
because the government is not giving them time to get to Ottawa
to testify?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite has
raised the topic of being reasonable.
Is his party being reasonable by tabling hundreds of clippings
from old newspapers in the House of Commons instead of sharing
the views of his party? No. This is not being reasonable.
The government has simply tried to advance the bill to the next
stage. We have said we were ready to hear up to 45 witnesses in
committee, provided that doing so did not delay proceedings.
The members opposite have not, to date, managed to call more
than a few.
An hon. member: Liar.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: As we all know in this place, words like “liar” are
not permitted in the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
more we question the government about its clarity bill, the more
its answers are evasive and confusing. The clarity bill is
becoming less and less clear.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Can the minister tell us what the value of the distinct society
motion passed by his government is, considering that 49 of the
75 federal members of parliament representing Quebec are about
to vote against Bill C-20?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, even if the Bloc Quebecois voted against the resolution
on distinct society, that resolution means a lot to Quebecers
and all Canadians.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
because of this undemocratic bill in the Canadian parliament,
the Quebec National Assembly had to introduce its own Bill 99 on
the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the people and the
state of Quebec.
1425
Can the minister clearly tell us today which of the two acts
will take precedence in determining the clarity of the
referendum process: Bill C-20 in the House of Commons, or Bill 99
in the Quebec National Assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I already answered that question. We live in a
constitutional state. If, in a constitutional state, one act
complies with the law and another does not, it is the act that
complies with the law which will apply.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Vital eye surgery in Calgary today costs $750; for two eyes,
$1,500. The choice that patients face is paying up or doing
without.
Does the Prime Minister think it is right that patients face a
choice between paying $1,500 or risking loss of eyesight?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the clinics that the member refers to comply with the Canada
Health Act because this government took action to make sure they
did. The government has also shown its commitment to health care
in Canada through the budget last year. It has significantly
increased the transfers to the provinces. It said at that time
that it would do more when circumstances permitted.
It will take more than money to make sure that we fix what is
wrong with medicare. That is why I have invited provincial
health ministers to join me at the table to plan changes that
will make a difference over the long term. I expect they will.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, those
words are nothing but hot air as long as the government is paying
less than 15% of health care costs in the country. It is time
for the feds to butt in with cold cash. That is what the federal
government needs to do.
Will the Prime Minister make the commitment today to move toward
restoring the 50:50 health partnership so that Canadians can get
the health care they need, whatever their financial circumstances
or wherever they happen to live?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will reply to this question because I want to reaffirm
again that we have restored the level of transfers to the
provinces to the level it was in 1993-94. This is the only
program that we have restored entirely since the period of cuts.
It is up to the provincial governments to decide what they do
with the transfers. They can apply it to health care, education
or welfare.
* * *
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Now that the Department of Transport is enjoying huge surpluses
as a result of increased fuel tax revenues, will the minister
reduce the fuel taxes on trucks, at least in the short term, to
assist the trucking industry, which is fighting hard to make ends
meet?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had
under consideration the entire tax burden as it impacts on Canada
and on individual Canadians. If the member looks at it he will
realize that a only very small portion of the price increase for
fuel relates to the tax.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary. The Department of Transport has gone
from a zero surplus to a three thousand million dollar surplus in
a very short time. At the same time, the trucking industry
cannot even make ends meet because of high taxes.
Again, will the minister reduce the taxes in the short term to
help this troubled industry?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ever since we
have taken office the question of tax reduction has been a
priority of the government. As a matter a fact, in the last two
budgets, when we were in a surplus, we cut taxes by $16.5 billion
over three years.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have assured the
House that tax cuts will be part of this budget and future
budgets.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the ways the minister has tried to explain public
money going into areas that did not qualify under her own rules
was to talk about “pockets of high unemployment”. She actually
does not seem to understand this concept herself and in the House
has explained what these pockets mean in three different ways.
1430
Today in a rather interesting effort at damage control her
department released an undated document which purported to
explain this concept of pockets. She did not tell MPs about
this, but she said that the pockets were applied differently in
different regions.
I wonder if the minister could explain this whole—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to indicate to the House of Commons that yes,
there were some areas in the country where the level of
unemployment was lower than 12%. Because of the pockets of
unemployment we decided that they were to receive grants. The
riding of Kootenay—Columbia had six projects. The riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni had seven projects. The riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan had six projects. I have a long list which I
will keep for the next answer.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, is it not interesting that the Prime Minister does not
feel enough confidence in his minister to explain such a simple
concept of pockets. Not only is the minister not clear on the
concept but her own document says each region was using its own
approach in considering if a pocket was or was not eligible.
Is it not pretty clear, and I would like the minister to confirm
this, that this is simply a transparent attempt to bend the
rules, to get the political results the Liberals wanted?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I am very glad to have
the support of my leader. I wonder if the hon. member has the
support of her—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
indicated there were a number of areas that received support
through the transitional jobs fund in areas of less than 12%
unemployment. They include, and I will continue with the list,
Okanagan—Coquihalla, Okanagan—Shuswap, West Kootenay, West
Vancouver—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government thinks it can use taxpayers'
money to advance its partisan views. On Friday, the Prime
Minister even went so far as to say that this was only normal.
Could the Prime Minister tell us why 54% of all transitional
jobs fund grants to Quebec between March 1996 and March 1999
were distributed in the months immediately preceding or
following the June 1997 general election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the decisions taken after the election were certainly not very
helpful. In the case of the riding of Saint-Maurice, of the 17
decisions taken, five preceded the election, and 12 followed it.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the poorly managed files,
public servants were the ones who had to pick up the pieces for
decisions made during the election campaign. People do not
realize that this problem is not limited to the transitional
jobs fund—the Liberals dipped freely into all grants programs in
order to buy votes in the last election.
1435
How can the Prime Minister say this is only normal and boast
about using public money for partisan purposes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every one of the members who has risen received all sorts of
grants before the election. Not a single Bloc Quebecois member
stood up and said the Liberal government should be thanked for
the good job it is doing in Ottawa distributing money to the
disadvantaged, the poor and the disabled in his or her riding.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
get back to the memo that comes from the transitional jobs fund
dealing with grants and how they are approved, it says that the
minister and her officials say that each region was using its own
approach in considering if a pocket was or was not eligible. It
seems that how they pick pockets on that side is a matter of
discretion.
Could the minister tell us how she proposes to pick the pockets
and could she tell us how the taxpayers should be left on the
hook once she does it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, part of the strength of the transitional
jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund was to allow local directors
to help meet the needs of local communities. There is a
flexibility that is associated with both these programs. As we
said that flexibility was used in a number of Reform ridings.
Surely that great western party that touts the need for
flexibility would not want the control to be drawn back to
Ottawa.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, so
far we have heard three different ways they pick the pockets in
this place. One is as the minister said last week, that it was a
period of time, that it was a pocket of time. Next she got up
and said it was actually—
The Speaker: We could stay away from the words “picked
pockets”.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was a
period of time of high unemployment. Then the minister said it
was not a period of time at all, it was actually a geographic
location. Now we find out it may be that or it may be something
else or it may be whatever they woke up and decided it would be.
It seems that the approval process is not local at all. It
appears to be tied together quite closely to the front bench.
Why does the minister say that picking a pocket of high
unemployment deserves to be done in her office?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will spend some
time with his colleagues, those members of the Reform Party who
wrote to me, through their offices, sometimes individually,
saying to please get the approval of the Canada jobs fund
completed for their riding. Some made phone calls asking where
the approvals were.
It is clear to me what that party is. Its members stand in the
House here in Ottawa and indicate that what they want to do is
scrap programs like the Canada jobs fund, but when they go back
to their ridings they tell quite a different story.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in last
Friday's question period, the Minister of Veterans Affairs
answered a question instead of the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development
or the Minister for International Trade. How can she, or he,
explain why the administration of that department was, until the
summer of 1999, characterized as being suitable for the Middle
Ages?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday I was very glad to have part
of my team, the minister responsible for ACOA who also is
involved in these particular projects, respond to an individual
representation in the House.
With regard to the workings of my department, I am very glad to
say that we are making progress on the work of improving
administrative practices in my department. Men and women are
being trained. Files are being reviewed. Today we have
presented to members of parliament the details of the grants and
contributions in their ridings. I hope they go back and look at
this because clearly, many—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
1440
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another
question for the Minister of Human Resources Development or the
Minister of International Trade.
The minister signed a letter delegating her signing authority to
her Deputy Minister, supposedly to avoid a conflict of interest,
supposedly to protect her integrity.
Can the minister tell this House whether her predecessor had
also signed such a letter?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: This question is in order. The hon. Minister of
Human Resources Development.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Allouette.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: She does not want to answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I said the question was in order.
If the hon. minister wishes to reply, she may.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought you ruled it out of
order.
As I have made clear to the House, in my riding there were no
rules broken. The terms and conditions of the projects were
undertaken appropriately. I delegated the authority for approval
to my deputy minister. That was my choice to do and I did it.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is having trouble explaining that aspect. Let us
move to another one.
This weekend the Prime Minister compared the billion dollar
boondoggle at human resources to Canadians not being able to
balance their chequebooks, a poor analogy to say the least.
When the Prime Minister is entrusted with billions of taxpayers'
hard-earned dollars, he has a responsibility to keep track of
them. Why does the Prime Minister try to minimize the bungling of
a billion dollars as though it were a commonplace occurrence in
his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they keep talking about billions of dollars. Everyone
knows that there was an audit on cases for $200 million. Out of
459, 37 had problems. Thirty-seven representing $33 million had
problems. As I said on Friday, and it is still the same, one
more file was completed. Only four more are to be completed. So
far $5,974.93 has not been justified.
They talk about billions—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister is back to the minimize
theory, that this is not such a big deal after all.
The Prime Minister compared the loss and mismanagement of a
billion dollars to Canadians accidentally going over budget at
the end of the month. He said, “I think it happens to you at the
end of month to see that you have spent a few dollars more than
expected”. That is what he said. I can assure you, Mr.
Speaker, that there are not too many Canadians who accidentally
bungle a billion dollars.
Is the Prime Minister suggesting that his government is so
mismanaged that a billion dollar bungle is a commonplace
occurrence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they use words that have no relation to reality at all.
They were all lining up to receive grants in their ridings and
that was their duty to do that.
The auditors reported that there were 37 cases with problems
representing $33 million. There are four more to be reviewed and
the amount of money is the money that they have not been able to
trace back.
When they talk about billions of dollars, they have absolutely
no—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development said that she had
delegated her signing authority to her Deputy Minister in order
to not be in a conflict of interest position, that this was the
method she had selected. She just said it again a moment ago.
I will ask her again: Did her predecessor do the same? I do not
want her to repeat that she chose to do so; this, we know, as
she has played the same tape over three or four times.
I would like to ask her very precisely if she can tell this
House whether her predecessor also signed a letter delegating
his contract signing authority to his deputy minister. I would
like her to answer this question.
1445
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is necessary is to make sure that
terms and conditions of grants and contributions are upheld. What
is necessary is to make sure that projects are approved with
regard to the requirements of those programs. In all cases this
was undertaken appropriately.
* * *
HATE CRIMES
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
There have been a number of recent reports including that of the
League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith and more recently by the
city of Toronto police attesting to a disturbing rise in hate
crimes against vulnerable minorities in the country.
What is the government doing to combat the disturbing and
growing incidence of hate crimes throughout the country?
[Translation]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government takes that type of
activities seriously.
[English]
In addition to all the measures already in place, through Bill
C-33 we have added sexual orientation to the Canadian Human
Rights Act. We have amended the hate crimes legislation to
ensure that there is aggravated sentencing for hate crimes.
At the moment I am heading up a round table with the Minister of
Justice, the Solicitor General of Canada and Industry Canada to
look at issues of new data collecting, of legislation that needs
to be improved and of the new—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1997 an audit of TJF projects in Quebec and Atlantic Canada
revealed that grants were too political, that eligibility rules
were bent, and that job creation figures were inflated. In fact
it described the job creation numbers as misleading and said that
pressure to expedite these grants was exerted from the political
level.
Given the fact that no action was taken to fix this problem, why
should Canadians believe that this program was not working
exactly as the Liberals intended, to send out grants for
political gain and nothing else?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost the hon. member should
look at the list available to him now. He will see that more
than half of the transitional jobs fund projects are found in
opposition ridings. He should also understand that in that
review “there was no recommendation that we change from
involving local members of parliament in the approval process”.
I would think that the hon. member opposite who likes to
represent his constituents would applaud it for having that as
part of the flexibility of this program. Mr. Speaker, what the
report did say, and maybe you are wanting me to wait until—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are getting pretty angry with the government's gross
mismanagement of their money, especially when tax time is right
around the corner. The Prime Minister does not seem to think
there is anything wrong. He says the billion dollar boondoggle
at HRDC—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace
River may begin his question again.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, with tax time just
around the corner Canadians are pretty conscious. They are
getting pretty angry with the government's mismanagement of their
money, yet the Prime Minister does not seem to think there is
anything wrong. He says the billion dollar boondoggle over at
HRDC is just business as usual.
Why cannot the Prime Minister understand that the little guy
from Shawinigan's fountain, statue, is nothing more than peeing
taxpayer money down the St. Maurice River?
The Speaker: I am sure we could find other descriptive
words than the one that was used. I would hope that we would not
use it any more.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we know the name of the new party we will know why
they are talking about the other end.
Perhaps I should apologize to the residents of the riding of
Peace River because unfortunately we used taxpayer money to give
grants to the Independent Living Society, the Salvation Army, the
Canadian Mental Health Association, the Disabled Transportation
Society, the Grande Prairie Children's Society and the North Peace
Youth Support Association. It is too bad—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver East.
1450
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
received a copy of an e-mail communication between the supervisor
of an HRDC office in northern Ontario and other staff which
raises question about the MP's role in awarding HRDC grants. The
communication states:
I suspect that the MP will want some projects funded that will
not meet the apparent objectives of the JCP.
The member in question is now a cabinet minister and former
parliamentary secretary to HRDC.
This culture of political influence demands investigation, so I
have a question for the Prime Minister. Will he appoint an
independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this mess?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the program, the transitional
jobs funding and indeed the Canada jobs fund, we felt it wise to
include members of parliament who should know their communities,
although I think we are going to find, as we just did, that many
of them are not aware of the grants and contributions given to
their ridings. Members who do know their communities can have a
voice as senior elected federal officials in those ridings on
grants and contributions and their application.
From our point of view that makes sense and I would think the
hon. member would feel that way as well.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is ducking the issue. The question is whether or not
projects were approved with members' involvement that do not meet
the objectives of the program. The fact is that good programs
are being poisoned now for political purposes.
I have forwarded a copy of this e-mail to the auditor general
and asked that it be investigated. The political management of
these funds is of huge concern to Canadians. Again, will the
Prime Minister act in the public good and demand that there be an
independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this mess?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask the hon. member where she has been in the last few
weeks. There is an independent inquiry going on. It is being
carried out by the auditor general, an officer of the House.
The hon. member ought to be wide awake when things are going on
so she will know what is happening to deal with this serious
situation in an effective and fair way, not the way she is
handling it.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians are finding there is a direct
contradiction between the propaganda that the Prime Minister is
spouting about the HRDC scandal and what senior officials in his
own department are saying.
The Prime Minister says $6,000 and senior officials say $90,000.
The Prime Minister has constantly led Canadians to believe there
was no problem. He has diminished and downplayed the amount of
money that was not accounted for and the degree of misinformation
that occurred. Who should Canadians trust, the officials who are
simply doing their job and being asked to shoulder the blame, or
the king of Shawinigan?
The Speaker: We are getting more and more into nicknames.
Please address each other as hon. members by referring to titles
instead of by using nicknames. All that does is rile up the
House.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to clarify this
point. I would reiterate that the Prime Minister is absolutely
correct. Of the 37 projects that we are reviewing, 33 have been
closed and we have identified an overpayment that we will try to
collect in the area of $5,974.93.
With regard to the media article about the $83,000 that was
portrayed as an overpayment, it is absolutely wrong. The
official that the hon. member is referring to made that clear in
a technical briefing today. Indeed the sponsor has multi-year
contracts with the department and is advanced funds to assist
with cash flow requirements.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in documents released by HRDC a project in the
riding of my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche was listed as
having been awarded $750,000 in TJF and the creation of 75 jobs.
I can inform the House that the project, Atlantic Furniture
Manufacturing, never did get off the ground. It never opened its
doors and it certainly did not employ 75 people.
In light of yet another embarrassing blunder, how can Canadians
have any faith in the misinformation recently released by the
HRDC minister?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm again for the House
and for Canadians that 95% of the transitional jobs fund projects
are still working, are ensuring that Canadians are employed, and
are making a difference.
1455
The hon. member has to appreciate that there are going to be
some projects in areas that do not fulfil our expectations. We
are talking about taking risk here. We are talking about going
into communities where no one else will go. That is the job of
the Government of Canada and that is what Canadians want.
* * *
AIR INDUSTRY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
Transport. Since Pearson International Airport is in my riding
of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, many of my constituents
want increased international air services for Canada with
increased competition from overseas airlines.
Could the minister explain why the government is not doing more
to help Canadian carriers get a large share of international air
routes?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my distinguished colleague, but
the air restructuring that we are going through has meant the
opening up of more transborder routes to the United States and
more international routes to Asia and to the Atlantic. Many of
those routes will be going from Toronto as well as from the other
larger cities across the country.
Last week I gave approval for Canada 3000 and Air Transat to fly
to the United Kingdom and to Germany. There have been
applications from Canada 3000 to fly Southeast Asian routes.
There will be more and more choices and more and more competition
that will be offered from Canadian cities on international
routes.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the 1997
audit pointed out that there was political interference in the
granting of transitional jobs funds. Bureaucrats said they had
no choice but to approve the projects from the Prime Minister's
riding.
How could the Minister of Human Resources Development expect to
maintain the confidence of Canadian taxpayers when dollars are
skewed and numbers are skewed as to the job creation figures? Is
it simply to support, fill and augment the Prime Minister's
political patronage trough?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in the premise to his
question is completely wrong. If he wants to talk about results
then maybe he should look at the list of transitional jobs fund
projects. If he wants to talk about it being skewed, indeed it
is skewed in favour of opposition members.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
asked a very simple question of the Minister of Human Resources
Development as to whether her predecessor had delegated his
signing authority to his deputy minister, Mel Cappe.
The question is very easy to answer: it is either yes or no. I
would ask her to answer me, unless she allows her predecessor,
if he has the permission of the government to answer questions,
to tell the House whether Mr. Cappe did or did not have
authority to sign on behalf of the minister who headed the
department at the time and who is now the Minister for
International Trade.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no requirement to undertake
this, to create this delegation of authority. As I have said
before, what is required is to ensure that the terms and
conditions of programs and projects are undertaken. What is
required is to make sure that the integrity of our programs, our
grants and contributions is maintained.
From my point of view as Minister of Human Resources Development
there is work I have to undertake to ensure that the
administration of grants and contributions is improved, and I
will do that.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, gasoline now
costs 71.9 cents a litre in Bathurst, while diesel is at 79.4
cents a litre in Yarmouth, the highest level in ten years.
Canadians are discouraged and now truckers from Ontario, Quebec,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are protesting at the New
Brunswick border against this drastic increase in the price of
gasoline. Some of them even think they may have to hand over
their trucks to the banks.
Will the federal government finally act, or will it wait until
the situation becomes a national crisis?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial
Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the price of
oil has actually doubled since last year. Taxes went up by only
one cent.
This is not the problem for people buying gasoline. The problem
is not taxes, but the fact the price of oil has doubled.
* * *
1500
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, in 1995
the Minister of Finance introduced a new tax on gasoline of one
and a half cents per litre. This was supposed to be a deficit
reduction tax.
Now that the deficit has been eliminated, when will the
government be removing this tax?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would urge the
member opposite, who was part of a government which certainly did
not reduce taxes but raised taxes when going into a recession, to
wait for the budget which will be one week from today, when he
will see what this government's priorities are in terms of future
tax reductions.
* * *
[Translation]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of Alain Richard, Minister of Defence of
the French Republic.
[English]
Also in the gallery is the Hon. Anna Thistle, President of the
Treasury Board, and the Hon. Beaton Tulk, Minister of the
Department of Development and Rural Renewal, both of the House of
Assembly of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINT OF ORDER
CANADIAN FLAGS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, you will recall that, last Thursday, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage accused me of stockpiling Canadian flags sent
me by her department.
I seek the permission of the House to table these flags.
The Speaker: This is not in order.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, I do not in any way wish to question your
ruling, but it seems to me that, as soon as consent is sought,
the simplest thing—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Nothing
has been used, named or said today with respect to the matter at
issue. But, assuming that it had, is there unanimous consent
for the hon. member to table these objects?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine
petitions.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill S-10, an act to amend the
National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal
Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on
the Library of Parliament presented to the House on December 16,
1999 be concurred in.
This report establishes the mandate of the committee, its quorum
and its entitlement to sit during days at the Senate.
I would like to thank Santosh, the clerk of the committee, for
the great job she has done.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions on behalf of my
constituents who urge the Government of Canada do everything
possible to end child poverty. These two petitions are exactly
the same in nature.
* * *
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 12 and 47.
I would ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 12—Mr. Jim Hart:
With respect to AIDA/WFIP and the tree fruit industry: (a) what is
the percentage differences in gross margin levels among
commodities: For example, perennials, tree fruits, versus
annuals, grains; (b) can the government provide information to
show that commodity groups are not treated inequitably based on
their relative use of eligible and ineligible expenses; (c) can
the governement provide data that would indicate the AIDA program
would still work should back to back below average returns be
experienced in the base period; (d) can the government provide
information to indicate that the inclusion of negative margins in
the reference margins but reducing to zero in the claim year is
more beneficial than reducing negative margins to zero for both
the base period and the claim year; (e) can the government
provide information to show if AIDA recognizes the special
problems of perennial crops such as the little flexibilty to
switch commodities and varieties?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): (a) AIDA is a whole farm program so that support is not
provided on a commodity basis. Data is not available on gross
margins by commodity produced.
(b) AIDA provides a common basis of support for all commodities.
There is no evidence to suggest that any commodities groups are
being treated inequitably based on eligible versus ineligible
expenses. Larger farms whether grain, tree fruits or other
commodities would tend to have larger margins in dollar terms
than smaller farms producing the same commodities. However, it is
not the absolute size of the margin but the variation in the
margins between the reference period and the claim year that triggers
an AIDA payment.
(c) Depending on the trend in the margins, AIDA can make
payments continuously to bring farms up to 70% of the previous
three year average. In the sense that AIDA payments can be
triggered in periods where margins are declining, the program can
work in back to back below average return years. However. the
level of payment will reflect the historical margins. In 1999
producers will be able to choose a reference period on which to
base their payments, either the previous three years, or three of
the previous five years, not counting the high and low income
years. This will help to maintain their reference period margins
as one of the low margin years can be dropped from the support
calculations.
(d) There is no evidence that ignoring negative margins in the
reference period would have a significant impact on program
payments versus the current design where negative margins are
included in the reference period. Raising negative margins to
zero in the reference period would be contrary to World Trade
Organization, WTO, guidelines governing green programs and leave
Canada open to trade action by our trading partners.
On november 4, 1999, the Government of Canada announced that it
is making a further $ 170 million available to cover negative
margins under AIDA across the country. A good portion of farmers'
negative margins will now be covered for both years of the
program, 1998 and 1999. Along with allowing producers to choose a
reference period another change will ensure that family and
non-family labour are treated the same in calculating eligibility
for 1999. These changes mean that a potential $1.07 billion in
federal funding will be available to help farmers through two
years of low international commodity prices and adverse weather.
The changes are consistent with the advice received from the
national safety nets advisory committee.
(e) AIDA is not intended to provide support for producers until
their plants mature and produce a reasonable yield. A producer
must be able to finance the period when plants are not producing.
AIDA will only cover the portion of the farm that is in
production, but as with all other commodities it will provide
payments when income falls dramatically. While perennial crops
limit flexibility, this is also true of those who have little
flexibility in the mix of their annual crops and it is true for
those with large investments in specialized livestock facilities.
*Question No. 47—Mr. Guy St-Julien:
Can the government produce a list of all applications made by
individuals and/or groups in the federal riding of Abitibi—Baie
James—Nunavik to programs of the Department of Justice for the
following periods: (a) April 1, 1997, to March 31, 1998; (b)
April 1, 1998, to March 31, 1999; and (c) April 1, 1999, to
October 31, 1999?
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): An application to
fund a project was made by the Grand Council of the Crees of
Quebec under the Department of Justice's aboriginal justice
strategy. Funding in the amount of $77,000 was allocated to the
grand council for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Madam
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an act to
modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and
obligations, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today in the debate on Bill C-23.
The purpose of this bill is to make adjustments to reflect our
changing society, and to acknowledge advantages and obligations
for same sex couples on the same basis as those conferred upon
common law couples of the opposite sex.
Before going any further in this debate, I must make it clear
that I am speaking for myself, since the Progressive
Conservative Party has chosen to allow its members to vote
freely on this matter.
It is a sign of the times that this is at least the second
occasion in two years on which the members of this House have
had the opportunity to debate this matter. We can therefore say
that this is definitely the reflection of a new reality.
1510
In my opinion, this demonstrates how the thinking of Canadians
has evolved, as they are now prepared to accept a certain degree
of recognition of same sex partners. That is what the
government's bill proposes, nothing more.
In fact, Bill C-23 proposes an updating of some 68 federal
statutes in order to reflect numerous decisions by the courts of
this country, the most recent of these being the May 1999
Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v H., to which several of
my colleagues have already referred. At the very most, this is
a technical bill aimed at correcting a discriminatory definition
of the expression common-law spouses, which has until now been
limited to heterosexual couples.
Must this bill be considered a threat to the institution of
marriage? Or are we to consider it legitimate recognition of a
social situation in Canada and the simple adjustment of federal
laws in effect? Members will have understood that I am in the
latter camp, since marriage is a whole other matter for debate.
I beg the House's indulgence to make an aside in order to add my
voice to the arguments by my colleagues who are criticizing the
limited time afforded this House to study the scope of this
bill. Clearly, as we have realized with the bill on clarity,
the government is pushing us for time. The government's
propensity to push things lends credence to the disillusionment
of a number of our fellow citizens at the role elected
representatives play in the legislative process.
Furthermore, the courts in this country have reached many
decisions that would indicate the legislator is being dragged
along by the judges' decisions. It is the job of elected
officials and not of the judges to consider and vote on the laws
in this country.
In the matter before us, there are innumerable decisions
decrying in one way or another discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. The polls indicate clearly that most
Canadians consider it appropriate to give some sort of legal
recognition to same sex partnerships. Even if parliament were
to reject the present bill, it would face this issue once again
in a relatively short time. I would be surprised if the courts
were to change their minds and public opinion were to change
completely.
Elected officials will therefore be, as we are today, pressed to
change the laws to put an end to discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
By rejecting the bill, we could send Canadians the message that
we are not in tune with their concerns. Rather, we must show
Canadians that the government is aware that things change and it
is keeping an open mind. A number of provinces have passed or
are about to pass legislation to correct the situation.
The federal government too must adjust its legislation before it
becomes totally obsolete. We, as elected representatives, must
not merely react to social pressure, but anticipate it and act
accordingly. The public expects the government to be proactive,
because that is its role. If passed, Bill C-23 will put Canada
alongside the most progressive countries regarding this issue.
I agree with my colleagues and fellow citizens who feel that the
bill before us today relates closely to fairness and human
rights. Canada is constantly cited as an example of a tolerant
country that respects human rights.
Not so long ago, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, said that several
countries were constantly calling on his expertise in
interpreting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
develop their own laws. I personally care a great deal about the
principles of fairness and tolerance, which are the foundations
of Canadian society. However, I wonder why discriminatory
provisions can still be found in our legislation.
Why is the Canadian parliament hesitating to take a step that
many companies in the private sector have already taken? The
private sector is hardly known for its social convictions. I am
concerned that the prejudices associated with sexual orientation
are winning out over respect for human rights as understood in
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if not in the
letter, then at least in the spirit.
If there had not been legislation to abolish discrimination
based on sex, race, language or religion, Canada would not be
the model of tolerance it is today.
Bill C-23 has the advantage
of clarifying various pieces of legislation in a manner
consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and without prejudice to the institution of marriage,
which a majority of us, myself included, wish to protect.
1515
The government has deliberately chosen to maintain a clear
distinction between partner or spouse, which refers to legally
married couples, and common law partner, which refers to couples
living in a common law relationship, a conjugal relationship
different from marriage. The spirit of this important
distinction is the same as that in similar legislation passed in
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. It is only logical that
the definition of common law partners include same sex partners.
We would be sticking our heads in the sand to think that there
are no moral implications to this bill. However, I think that
this kind of definition corresponds to the evolution in what is
acceptable to Canadians.
That is what our society is prepared to accept. I do not
believe that the majority of the population wants a debate on
the definition of marriage. The government has the right angle
on this matter and I congratulate it on that.
Some of my colleagues would like to see a debate on marriage or
on the institution of the family as it has been understood for
generations. I am not rejecting such a debate, but I do feel it
is inopportune within the context of the bill being debated
today.
As I did in the debate on Bill C-309, introduced by the hon.
member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve in 1998, I support Bill C-23, and
for the same reasons.
This parliament must recognize, once and for all, that the
definition of common law spouse contained in federal legislation
is discriminatory. This flaw must be corrected promptly, in a
country claiming tolerance and fairness.
Like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I would
call upon the members of this House to set aside personal or
partisan considerations in order to reach a neutral and rational
judgment on this matter.
Canada has always played a lead role
in issues relating to the recognition of human rights, and must
continue to do so.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
we are debating the modernization of benefits and obligations
act, an act that was sponsored jointly by the Minister of
Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of
Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
The bill is part of an ongoing commitment by the Government of
Canada to ensure that its policies and programs continue to
reflect the values of Canadians, values that are enshrined in the
charter of rights and freedoms.
As many members are aware, the Supreme Court of Canada made it
clear that governments must treat unmarried opposite sex and same
sex couples equally. When the bill is passed it will amend
legislation to recognize the principle of equal treatment for all
common law relationships. Same sex partners will be included in
the new definition of common law partners and they will be
granted the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex common
law partners.
I also point out that the legislation changes will preserve the
fundamental importance of marriage in Canadian society. The
definition of marriage will not change. It is the union of a man
and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
The bill will amend 68 federal statutes affecting 20 federal
departments and agencies. The proposed changes are about
fairness. Same sex couples in committed relationships should be
entitled to the same benefits and obligations as their unmarried
opposite sex counterparts.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its May 1999 ruling in M. v H.,
has made it clear that governments cannot limit benefits or
obligations to opposite sex common law relationships. The
proposed changes will ensure that federal laws again reflect the
values of Canadians which are enshrined in the charter.
The proposed legislation does not affect the definition of
marriage. In fact, a few European countries have limited the
recognition of same sex relationships but a clear distinction is
maintained in law between marriage and same sex relationships.
Several provinces have already begun to amend their legislation.
Since 1997 British Columbia has amended numerous statutes to
include same sex partners. In June 1999 Quebec amended 28
statutes and 11 regulations to grant to same sex partners the
same benefits and obligations that are available to opposite sex
common law partners.
In October 1999, again to comply with the supreme court ruling
in M. v H., Ontario passed omnibus legislation to bring 67
statutes into compliance with the ruling.
1520
At present more than 200 private sector companies give benefits
to their employees' same sex partners, as do many municipalities,
hospitals, libraries and community and social service
institutions across the country.
The bill does not preclude discussion, which has already
started, on whether or how to acknowledge the nature and reality
of many different types of dependent relationships. Dependency is
a very complex issue with far-reaching consequences for
individuals and society as a whole. A number of adult Canadians
currently reside with elderly parents, siblings or other
relatives. Although many federal statutes currently extend
limited benefits and obligations to family relationships, further
study is needed to determine if would be appropriate to treat
family relationships as similar to married and common law couples
in all or at least in some circumstances. While benefits which
reflect dependency would likely be welcomed, it is unclear
whether the accompanying legal obligations should be imposed on
individuals for those relatives with whom they reside.
For example, eligibility for a guaranteed income supplement
under the old age security is determined on the basis of
combining the income of both persons, which might result in
reducing benefits for some elderly persons who live with
relatives. As another example, if an adult lives with an elderly
parent for many years and then leaves, should that adult remain
legally responsible to pay support for that parent because they
were once in a dependent relationship?
Other issues that would need to be resolved include how
dependency relationships would be defined and what relationships
would be allowed. Would individuals be allowed to self-declare
their relationships, or would the government require proof of
some kind? Would relationships of dependency apply to any two
people who live together or to unlimited numbers as long as they
are under the same roof? Would the government exclude any
relatives, as France has done, or exclude only opposite sex
common law couples, as Hawaii has chosen to do? There are many
issues yet to be resolved.
Our objective in considering changes to the system should be to
encourage rather than discourage people to take care of each
other. We must be careful to ensure that any legal changes would
not impose obligations that act as barriers to people supporting
each other.
The possibility of creating a domestic partner registry is also
of interest to some. However, there are several concerns with a
registry which would require further study.
There are privacy considerations since a registry would be open
to the public, as are registries for births and deaths, which
might result in people being forced to have their relationship
publicly known. As well, there are no guarantees that such a
scheme would protect the most vulnerable in a relationship, for
example, where one partner might refuse to register in order to
avoid legal obligations on the breakdown of that relationship.
Most important, if such a system were created at the federal
level it would have limited utility as it would only apply to
areas of federal jurisdiction. In Canada, where the many pieces
of legislation that grant benefits and impose obligations are
divided between or shared among the federal, provincial and
territorial governments, a registry would require the unanimous
agreement of all levels of government on the relationships to be
recognized. This would be necessary to help assure Canadians
that a registry would work effectively, efficiently and fairly.
These changes are balanced. Obligations as well as benefits
will be conferred on same sex couples. As a result, the fiscal
impact of these amendments will be minimal, if any. Clearly,
this is not a cost issue.
Many here today have expressed concern that the Government of
Canada is deferring to the courts on this issue and that the
supreme court is overstepping its proper role. It is important
to remember that the court is performing the role given to it by
elected representatives of all Canadians through the introduction
of the charter. There is no question that the role of the courts
in interpreting the charter has given them both a higher profile
and a direct influence on the daily lives of Canadians. However,
at the same time, the charter also maintains the equally
important role of parliament in determining important questions
of social policy. I assure the House that this role is taken
very seriously by the government.
1525
The bill is about fairness. It is a balanced and responsible
approach to the issue.
I wish to emphasize, because it is very important to my
constituents in Erie—Lincoln, that there is nothing in the bill
that alters the definition of marriage. The House will remember
that we passed a motion to that effect last June, the definition
being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others. The bill maintains a distinction between married and
unmarried couples and no changes are made to the legal definition
of marriage.
The term spouse in the federal legislation will refer only to
married persons and the term common law partner will refer to
those in same sex and opposite sex common law relationships. As
pointed out, the bill extends both benefits and obligations to
common law same sex couples.
Given the potential impact on individuals, as well as on
government programming costs of creating a system of benefits
based on broader principles of dependency, the issue again will
require further study and consultation.
However, our objective is clear: We wish to encourage rather
than discourage people to take care of each other. We must be
careful to ensure that any legal changes will not impose
obligations or barriers to people supporting each other.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
BILL C-2—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it has been impossible to reach
agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2)
with respect to the deliberations at report stage and third
reading of Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to
the House of Commons, repealing other acts relating to elections
and making consequential amendments to other acts.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give
notice that a minister of the crown will introduce a time
allocation motion at the next sitting of the House to allocate a
specified number of days or hours to deliberations at these
stages and to the decisions required to dispose of these stages.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
* * *
[English]
MODERNIZATION OF BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, an
act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits
and obligations, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, in light of the announcement that was just made by
the government House leader, we know that closure is being
invoked again. I believe it is the 60th time in this
government's reign of power, surpassing previous administrations.
However, I do have a question in terms of the government's
priorities. Once again we are faced with a very contentious
issue at this time in the House, as we have seen also with the
clarity bill. I am wondering why we are not talking about
significant issues, in particular with the run-up to the budget?
Why are we not talking about health care? Why are we not talking
about education and tax reduction?
Why has the government decided to foist on Canadians this
contentious, destructive debate at this time instead of bringing
in legislation like this at a time earlier in the session?
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I take issue with the
comment that the bill is contentious and divisive. This is
something that was brought forward by the hon. member's friends
in Ontario. They did not have a problem with it. In fact they
introduced it one day and passed it the next. It did not go to
committee as this bill will go to committee.
I take issue with what the hon. member is saying. We are
dealing with all things that are coming before us. This is an
important issue, vis-à-vis the charter, and we have to respond to
it. We just cannot ignore what is coming forward.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member made a big point about the June 1999 definition of
marriage that was accepted by the House as being one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others. He also indicated that the
bill that is currently before the House, Bill C-23, is a bill
that is fair, creates equity and all those kinds of things.
Does the hon. member believe that fairness and equity have to do
with creating privileges and benefits on the basis of conjugal
relationships other than marriage but that where there are other
economic dependency relationships those would be excluded from
the bill? Could the hon. member define for us what equality
actually means?
1530
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
bringing forward the issue of dependency. It is very complex. I
mentioned in my speech the many ramifications it could possibly
have.
We are working on the issue of dependency and will move forward
on it. Quite frankly I would be very surprised if some time in
the near future the extension of benefits and obligations to
people in dependency roles would come forward.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning a comment
made last week by his colleague from Scarborough East about Bill
C-23. I quote from page 3560 of Hansard where he said:
The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one
line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal
equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies
the entire issue.
He went on to say:
The bill turns common law homosexual relationships in the legal
equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for
many purposes is equivalent to marriage.
The member's colleague from Scarborough East made that
statement. Does he agree with it? Yes or no.
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with
that. There is nothing in the bill that has anything to do with
marriage. It is about obligations and benefits.
My colleague from Scarborough can have his input on it. It is a
very narrow input that has no credibility and does not hold water
whatsoever. It is not affecting marriage whatsoever, whatsoever,
whatsoever.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have here
a document that says the purpose of this omnibus bill is to
extend to same sex couples the same benefits and obligations
that apply to opposite sex common law couples.
I would like to give an example. My father, who is 76 years old,
is retired. The youngest of my brothers, from a family of 12
children, has decided to take my father in, since he is still
single.
Could my 76 year old father, who worked all his life, who raised
12 children and who paid taxes to the federal as well as the
Quebec government, not benefit from such legislation since he is
living with my brother? This legislation applies only to men or
women who are in a sexual relation. Because my brother is not in
a sexual relation with my father, he will not be able to benefit
from these measures.
If a same sex couple, two men or two women who are in a sexual
relation, who share the same bed, who have been living together
for more than a year, can benefit from tax breaks, is Bill C-23
not discriminatory against a daughter who takes her mother in or
a son who takes his father in?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is
speaking to the dependency model. As indicated in my address it
is a complex issue. There is certainly a lot of support for what
the member is saying.
We all have family members who are in non-conjugal
relationships: brothers and sisters, mothers and daughters,
fathers and sons, or fathers and daughters, et cetera. The
legislation is not shutting the door on them. It is leaving it
open. In fact studies have already begun in this regard. The
Law Reform Commission is looking into it.
It is very complex. It is not simple. It is not black and
white. More study has to be done. We look forward to the
member's input into this study. Let us bring forward good
supplementary legislation, but we cannot ignore what the courts
have told us we have to do.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to pick up on what the member for Charlevoix has
said.
From the beginning of his speech, the parliamentary secretary
has been saying that this must be broadened to include other
cases in the community. Will it be possible, during clause by
clause study in committee, to introduce amendments to that
effect?
1535
Will it be possible to introduce amendments to this bill so that
a father caring for his son, or a son caring for his father,
will have the same benefits the bill now provides for persons in
a sexual relationship? We know that it is a very long while
before a bill is actually passed.
Would it be possible to add new provisions to the bill at
committee stage, and would the government agree to such
provisions?
[English]
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, as I keep saying, it is
a very complex issue. It is not black and white. It is
premature. More study has to go into it.
For example, let us look at the eligibility for guaranteed
income supplement. Under old age security it is determined on
the basis of combining the income of both persons, which might
result in reducing the benefits for some elderly people who live
with their relatives. I am sure she would not want that to
happen. Or, should an adult who lives with a parent and leaves
after many years remain legally responsible for paying support to
that parent because they were once in a dependency relationship?
These are the type of issues that have to be considered in depth
and at length. We certainly will not be able to do that at the
committee stage by proposing amendments, because we would not be
able to look at it in the detail it warrants.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
challenge the parliamentary secretary. He makes a big point
about saying how complex is this interdependency business and I
could not agree more. Why the rush to get this bill through?
Sixty-eight pieces of legislation are affected by this one bill.
Is it not rational to expect very deep study?
Now we have time allocation on top of it all. A certain
illogic, a certain irrationality seems to be prevailing. Could
the hon. member persuade his colleagues to do the necessary study
so that when it comes forward we can actually look at it
seriously and say it covers the waterfront instead of having some
kind of a patchwork quilt operation?
Mr. John Maloney: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon.
member that roughly 67% of Canadians favour this type of
legislation. It is a majority in all the regions of the country.
People are behind it because it is fair and it should be
proceeded with, especially in view of what the court has been
telling us. We cannot ignore that. We have given them that—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from
Kelowna. I begin my debate on Bill C-23 today by reflecting on
the comments and arguments which were made during the first day
of debate last week.
I clearly indicate from the outset that I do not support the
legislation. The official opposition is the only party opposing
this fatally flawed piece of legislation. I will outline the
reasons why I cannot support Bill C-23, and I will begin with an
examination of some comments made by the Minister of Justice last
week.
As my colleague from Kelowna just mentioned, debate on this
important issue has a wide range of implications. It is being
shut down today through time allocation, a process that has been
used over and over again by the Liberal government. I cannot
understand why it would do that on such an important piece of
legislation.
Last week on February 15 the Minister of Justice stated that the
bill ensured respect for the principle of equal treatment before
the law of persons living in recognized stable relationships. Let
us be very clear that the minister's bill defines a stable
relationship as one that is one year in length. She went on to
state that fairness, tolerance, respect and equality were
touchstones of our national identity. The minister will get no
argument on this point. This has been echoed by members on both
sides of the House, both those for and those against the bill.
The minister went on to say that they recognize marriage is a
fundamental value and important to Canadians, and that the value
and importance are in no way undermined by recognizing in law
other forms of committed relationships. I categorically say that
assertion is false.
Let me outline the strongest argument I think possible for
rejecting Bill C-23, one which I believe cannot be refuted by
means of recent argument or logical consistency.
The bill defines the new term common law partnership as a stable
relationship of at least one year between two committed
individuals, whether it be a same sex relationship between two
men or two women or an opposite sex relationship between a man
and a woman. I do not believe anyone would argue that is what
Bill C-23 does and that the bill bestows benefits and requires
obligations for those who enter into same sex relationships. For
purposes of this illustration let us call this arrangement
example C.
1540
We know that in the eyes of the common law a union between a man
and a woman in a ceremony before witnesses sanctioned by the
state is called a marriage. Let us call this arrangement example
A.
We also know that in the eyes of the law a man and a woman who
choose to live together for at least one year, even though they
have not participated in any ceremony before witnesses, are
deemed to be in a common law relationship or marriage. The same
benefits are accessible and the same obligations are in effect
for those who are living in such an arrangement. Let us call
this common law opposite sex relationship example B.
Logically if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. If the
law sees marriage, and it does, as equivalent to a common law
opposite sex relationship and sees a common law opposite sex
relationship as equivalent to common law same sex relationships,
and it does in this proposed piece of legislation, in effect the
law if passed, Bill C-23, will see marriage as equivalent to
common law same sex relationships or as stated in the bill in
terms of a common law partnership.
For the minister to state that the bill does not affect marriage
is completely false and illogical in any form of reasoning. The
minister may believe this to be true. She may make assertions to
the contrary, but by means of logic we have just demonstrated
that it is not true.
The end result of the bill is to enshrine in law that two
homosexual partners who live together for just one year will be
afforded the same benefits and obligations as a married couple, a
couple who have commitments to live together and love each other
through sickness and health until death do them part, a
commitment which is fundamental to the continuation and
well-being of any society, the building block of society where
children learn about right and wrong, good and bad, how to treat
others, and how to be positive functioning members of society.
For the minister to claim otherwise is simply false.
Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to protect
marriage? The justice minister is unwilling to enshrine in
federal statute the definition of marriage as the union of a man
and a woman as recognized by the state.
A motion was passed in the House in June 1999 that was brought
forward by my colleagues in the Reform Party and agreed upon by
the majority of members in the House including Liberals. They in
no way can take credit for such action. It is because of the
Liberal inaction on this question and their unwillingness to
define in statute the definition of marriage that we brought the
motion forward.
The minister says she values marriage but she is unwilling to
speak with her actions instead of her hollow words. This point
was made by the Liberal member for Scarborough East, a member of
the government and one of only a handful who was willing to stand
and say something contrary to the will of the Liberal Party. I
will quote from Hansard what that member of the government
said in regard to the bill:
The bill is fairly simple. It really could be written in one
line: common law heterosexual relationships are the legal
equivalent to common law homosexual relationships. Therein lies
the entire issue.
I am quoting the member for Scarborough East, a member of the
government, who also said:
The bill turns common law homosexual relationships into the legal
equivalent of common law heterosexual relationships, which for
many purposes is equivalent to marriage.
That was a member of the Liberal Government of Canada who I
guess is in direct contradiction to the majority of his group in
the governing party.
Let Canadians make no mistake about the net end effect of Bill
C-23 and its implications. Anybody with concerns about the issue
who is listening today should voice their concerns to their local
member of parliament, to the Minister of Justice and to the Prime
Minister to tell them what he or she feels is the right way to
proceed in this area of public policy.
1545
Basically the Liberal government is signalling that it believes
in sexual egalitarianism, the belief that there are no
arrangements that are to the benefit of any others in the country
in terms of private sexual activity. The government is
signalling to Canadians that it no longer values the direction of
a social policy which encourages and nurtures family and marriage
as the building block of this society.
Let us make no mistake about it. That is what the bill does.
It signals to Canadians that the governing group, the Liberal
Party of Canada, is setting off in a direction and it has not
even consulted Canadians on this very important issue that is the
building block of any society. That is patently wrong.
The minister and other colleagues have put forward an argument,
which we heard not long ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Justice, that the courts made the government do
it so it must be right. They say that other jurisdictions are
putting this into legislation so we must follow. Again this is a
false assertion.
This is the highest court in the land. We as parliamentarians
are charged with the responsibility of sending a message to the
courts. It is not the other way around. It is here that we must
take the stands from our constituents and bring them to this
place and argue and debate by logical reasoning which is the best
way to go. Here in this place.
Let us clearly point out that the Liberal government is
unwilling by its actions to enshrine in law the definition of
marriage. It has a perfect opportunity right now with Bill C-23,
yet it has not done that. We must take from its actions as it is
legislating that this is a path it does not want to pursue. The
government does not want to enshrine the definition of marriage
in law for whatever reasons it might have. We need to hold and
Canadians need to hold this Liberal group accountable for that
particular action. The Liberals over and over again have
derogated their responsibility to the courts.
I see I am quickly running out of time on this important
subject. I will end my speech by encouraging Canadians to look
at what this legislation does. The parliamentary secretary, the
Minister of Justice and other members of the Liberal Party have
stood in this place and said “Don't worry. This bill has no net
effect on the definition of marriage”.
As I pointed out earlier in my speech, because they are
unwilling to enshrine in law what marriage means, and they are
equating marriage to be the same as a common law relationship and
now a common law partnership, they are in effect signalling to
Canadians that they no longer support the family. They no longer
support with their social policy the longstanding tradition of
this country and the building block of this society. That is a
shame and they need to be held accountable.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask a very direct question of the hon.
member opposite because certainly what this bill does do is it
equates a same sex relationship with a common law heterosexual
relationship. I am sure he would agree that the reason why we
have common law relationships is because they are specifically
not marriage.
I do not follow his reasoning that this is a threat to marriage
in some way because we have grouped same sex couples with common
law heterosexual couples. However, I do take note of his point.
It is regrettable that this bill does not define marriage as a
relationship between opposite sex couples.
I would like to ask him if the bill did define marriage in the
way we all agree that marriage should be defined and the way
marriage is defined in common law, would he then be able to
support this legislation?
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, my colleague made an
assertion which I do not think we can actually agree on, that we
all agree on what marriage is. That in itself is another
debatable point that will be coming at the end of this debate, I
believe.
This bill will enshrine, as the hon. member said, that common
law same sex relationships will be equal in the eyes of the law
to common law opposite sex relationships.
I would also say that in the eyes of the law in terms of
splitting property if such a relationship dissolves in terms of
the common law opposite sex relationship, the law sees a common
law heterosexual relationship in very much the same way as it
sees marriage.
1550
By equating a same sex partnership, as my colleague said, to a
common law heterosexual relationship in effect is equating it to
marriage in the eyes of the law. That is my assertion. That is
my reasoning on that. I appreciate my colleague's further
probing on that point.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, as the
member for Charlevoix, having been elected in 1993 and re-elected
in 1997, I think that my logic is sound and that I represent my
constituents well.
In 1973, when I decided to marry my girlfriend, I wanted a
family. Unfortunately, it did not happen in the first few
months. It took a few years. I even resorted to adoption. I
adopted a little aboriginal child, who will be 18 on July 2.
Subsequently, nature began to co-operate. Of course, I was
teased. There were even some people who told me “Gérard, now
that you've read the operating instructions, you know what
you're doing”. After adopting our first child, we had a boy and
a girl.
When the bill says that same sex couples should have the same
benefits as opposite sex couples, does this mean that even two
men who have been living together for a period of time could
apply to adopt a child?
We have all been to school. Children pick on each other asking
questions like “Who is your mother? Who is your father?” In
the case of two men living together who have adopted a boy or a
girl, is this any kind of example to set the child?
If the same benefits, up to and including the right to adopt
children, are provided, I am absolutely opposed.
[English]
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I congratulate my
colleague on the founding of his family. That is a very exciting
point and probably is more exciting than anything else we could
talk about here today.
I would say yes, that is a logical outgrowth of what could
happen with this legislation. There is similar legislation in
British Columbia where individuals who are in a same sex
relationship are able by law to adopt children. That is something
that could be an outgrowth of this legislation at the federal
level.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, thank
you for allowing me to enter the debate on Bill C-23. It is a
very significant bill, notwithstanding some of the comments that
the parliamentary secretary made that somehow he felt this was
not as important as certain other bills that the hon. member from
the Conservative Party raised earlier.
I want to raise two essential issues this afternoon. First it
is my intention to show that the bill is fundamentally and
fatally flawed. It was put together in a trivial manner. It
trivializes many of the very important things we believe in.
Second, I wish to show that the bill demonstrates that the
Minister of Justice is actually acting contrary to the wishes of
the House as expressed on June 8, 1999 when the House accepted in
an overwhelming majority vote that the definition of marriage
ought to be the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others.
1555
I wish to look at the fundamental flaw that underlies this bill.
Not only has it been put together on very short notice and not
only does it have tremendously far ranging implications, I am not
sure the government has analysed what all those implications are.
I suspect it has not. I suspect as well that all of the speeches
we will make will probably not analyse all of them either because
this cuts right into some of our deepest held beliefs.
Lest we think it is only the opinion of the opposition that this
is the case, let me read into the record an editorial which
appeared on February 15 on the editorial page of the National
Post. It is very significant and I wish to read it in detail.
Proponents of gay rights often argue their cause by analogy with
anti-racism. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
they say, makes as little sense as discrimination on the basis of
skin colour. But this comparison does not hold water. While
there is no justification for denying privileges to a citizen on
the basis of race, the issue of sexual orientation is less
clear-cut.
Society has a manifest interest in promoting heterosexual
marriage, through which it perpetuates itself. Unlike
heterosexuals, however, homosexual couples cannot conceive
children through conjugal union. Nor can they provide children,
however conceived, with adult role models of both sexes. Where
all-male marriages are concerned, moreover, gay households would
be far more likely than straight households to be destabilized by
promiscuity.
Thus, the best way to recognize the intertwined economic
interests of cohabitating homosexuals is not to expand the
definition of marriage, but to treat gay unions the same way we
treat common law partnerships. This is the idea behind the
modernization of benefits and obligations act introduced by
justice minister Anne McLellan on Friday. The legislation, if
enacted, would ensure that same sex couples will have—where
federal law is concerned—the same legal rights and obligations
as opposite sex common law couples.
My hon. colleague opposite has created a beautiful mathematical,
logistical formula.
But if gay couples are to enjoy the same benefits as common law
heterosexual couples, what is the justification for denying these
benefits to non-intimates, namely people in relationships who
pool economic resources but do not involve sexual
intercourse?—But this does not mean sexual intimacy should be
taken, by itself, as a proxy for economic interdependence. Our
society has a special interest in preserving heterosexual
marriage as an institution. If we decide to confer economic and
legal rights to couples whose relationships lie outside that
special interest, then it makes just as much sense to accord
rights to cohabitating family members and friends—spinster
sisters or old army buddies, for instance—as to homosexual
lovers.
In this respect the modernization of benefits and obligations
act is poorly conceived. It expands the definition of common law
couples only insofar as gay couples are concerned. Non-intimates
are excluded. There are, of course, good policy reasons for not
expanding the common law definition at all. But, once the
justice department expands it to include gay couples, there is no
reason why it should not include all cohabitating people.
And while the act does not go far enough in this area, it goes
too far in another, elevating common law relationships to the
same status as married couples with regard to all but a small
handful of federal laws. In this respect, the government is
actually going further than the Supreme Court of Canada has
required. In the 1999 case of M. v H., the court struck down a
provision in the Ontario Family Law Act defining “spouse” as
(1) a married person; or (2) a partner in a heterosexual couple
that has lived together for more than three years. The court
ruled that it was unconstitutional to exclude same sex couples
from the second category; but it left the issue of marriage
untouched.
In the backgrounder that accompanies her new legislation, the
hon. Minister of Justice is eager to reassure Canadians that
“the definition of marriage has not changed”.
And on Friday she announced that “the definition of marriage
relates to an institution that is of fundamental and longstanding
religious and historical significance”.
But if this is true, then why has she introduced legislation
that trivializes marriage by reducing it to a status more or less
equal to that of cohabitation plus sex? Her new legislation, if
passed in its present form, may soon become known as the End of
Marriage Act.
1600
Those are very serious statements made by one of the editorial
writers of the National Post.
I do not think any of us in the House should ignore the gravity
of the issue that is before us in this bill. Not only is it
being foisted upon us quickly, without adequate study and debate,
it is also ill-conceived in the sense that not nearly all of the
implications that arise from this piece of legislation have been
analyzed and the conclusions drawn.
What we have before us is an attempt by the government to foist
a bill upon us under the auspices of what is deemed to have been
a directive from the Supreme Court of Ontario, and it has gone
beyond what that particular court decided. Why would this House
go beyond what that court said it should do?
Why would the House even dare to suggest that the supreme court
has a say in what should happen in this House? It could give all
kinds of advice, it could give all kinds of indication as to what
could happen here. It is perfectly legitimate for the court to
do that. However, nothing could be further from the truth than
for the House to take it as a directive. “We must act. This is
the legislation we have to enact”. That is an insult, not only
to this House, but to every Canadian.
All Canadians who are taxpayers and who elected people to this
government should be saying that they are not representing them
honestly and fairly and this is not what they want. This House
is supreme, not the supreme court.
The hon. minister, with all due respect, has contravened the
wishes of the House. She had a golden opportunity to introduce
into this legislation a definition of marriage, to enshrine and
affirm that we, this House, define marriage as one man and one
woman to the exclusion of all others. Once again she missed a
golden opportunity to lay the foundation upon which our society
rests.
The family is the basic unit, the most efficient unit to
transfer values and beliefs from one generation to another. She
missed a golden opportunity, but she could still reconsider, and
I hope she does. I hope that she will withdraw this legislation,
or introduce an amendment which recognizes the family and the
definition of marriage, to enshrine it so there will not be a
contradiction and the denial of what has been clearly expressed
by the House as being the desired definition of marriage.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member opposite has gone on at great length about what
the courts have and have not done. The definition of marriage as
the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others
goes back to the court case of Hyde and Hyde in 1866.
I point out a recent case in Ontario. In the Ontario court,
general division, there was the case of Layland and Beaulne,
which dealt with the definition of marriage. In that decision a
majority of the court stated as follows:
—unions of persons of the same sex were not “marriages” because
of the definition of marriage. The applicants were, in effect,
seeking to use section 15 of the Charter to bring about a change
in the definition of marriage. The court did not think the
Charter has that effect.
Unions of persons of the same sex were not marriages.
In light of that statement, in that unanimous decision by the
court, what is the problem? Why are they so concerned about it?
It is there. The courts are saying exactly what they want them
to say. Can the member reconcile the statement made by the court
with what he has said today?
1605
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I am quite saddened by
the hon. member's comments. It seems to me that he has
completely missed the very point I was trying to make.
This House is supreme, not the courts. A judge will interpret
whatever he wants. He can say whatever he wishes in terms of
definition. However, the judge needs to know what the House
believes. How does the House define marriage? That is what it
is about. That is why it should be in law. It should not be
left to the courts to determine what is or what is not marriage.
The House of Commons determines that. The hon. member has it
backward.
I am saddened that he would come up with that kind of question.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the comments by the Reform member who
just spoke, and I believe he is right. If we were to follow the
logic of the people across the way, why elect a parliament, why
elect 301 members to this House? It would be a lot less
expensive, a lot less costly to elect the nine supreme court
justices and to ask them, as they have the monopoly of truth, to
legislate as they see fit, which might not always be how the
people really want it.
I think it runs contrary to reality to claim, as the member
across the way—for whom I have the greatest respect by the way—is
doing, that the House must listen to the dictates of the courts,
be they high courts, medium courts or low courts. I believe we
must give back to parliament its full authority, including
defining a couple.
If we define a legal marriage through legal means, in the near
future—I guess this is my question to the member for Kelowna—are
we not going to create legal children? Or are we going to come
up with legal creations which are not anchored in reality? This
is the danger. We know people who are living together, who are
not in a sexual relationship, but who are economically dependent
on each other.
In my riding, there is a brother, of very sound mind, who will
have to support his younger brother who is mentally deficient. I
had breakfast with him on Saturday and he told me “Why would it
not apply to me when I die? I am single, I will never marry, I
will never have children, I have only my brother to support. Why
could I not see to it that he is looked after, just as they are
going to do for same sex couples?”
This is why I have great difficulty with this bill.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the
hon. member for his very articulate analysis of the problem. I
really appreciate it. I think that when it comes to supreme
court judges, he would want them to be elected. One of the
problems, however, is that at the present time supreme court
judges are not elected. They are not accountable to anyone
except the Prime Minister. He appoints them. That is a flaw in
itself.
I will come back to the essence of the member's question, which
comes to grips with the very basic issue of the family and
marriage in Canada. I think we have to recognize that in law and
enshrine it in legislation.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am glad to engage in this debate because I agree with
the member for Kelowna. This is a very delicate issue for
Canadians and we need to have a very good debate in the House of
Commons on it.
My reaction to Bill C-23 is that it is both a good bill and a
bad bill. It is a bad bill in the sense that it still keeps the
issue of sex in legislation, and I am one who believes that the
statement of a former prime minister that the government has no
business in the bedrooms of the nation is very apropos and very
correct.
I am disappointed that the bill did not go much further, as many
of us on this side wanted, to explore dependent relationships,
which would certainly include same sex or heterosexual
relationships, but to expand that to other forms of dependency.
It would have been a better bill for that.
1610
However, it is an excellent bill for another reason, a very
different reason. It is a classic example of the government
responding with alacrity to pressure coming from members of
parliament. This is a case where the government actually
responded to the very insistent demands for action on the part of
backbench MPs on this side and many members on the other side.
I will tell the House a story with respect to this and I will
address my remarks, to some extent, to the member for Kelowna.
In his remarks the member for Kelowna suggested that this bill
was driven by supreme court decisions. In fact, Madam Speaker,
there is a story to this bill.
Last spring I served for a while on the committee studying Bill
C-63, the citizenship bill. I was not actually a member of that
committee, but I was very interested in that particular piece of
legislation and served quite a bit of time on the committee. I
was interested actually in the oath of citizenship. I was there
for an entirely different reason.
We had several witnesses come to the committee who pointed out
what they thought was a major flaw in Bill C-63. This was a
small section, section 43(i), and what it said, simply, was that
the governor in council would be able to define spouse for the
purpose of the legislation at hand.
Elsewhere in the bill there was a clause dealing with the
problem of Canada's officials when they serve overseas. If they
enter into permanent relationships which would lead to
citizenship, the law wanted to acknowledge that this should
include same sex relationships as well as heterosexual
relationships. With leaving the governor in council the
opportunity to define spouse for the purpose of these other
clauses, what was happening was that this was abrogating
parliament's responsibility to define spouse.
I should say that this issue was brought up first in committee
by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Its members spoke very
well before the committee. Later there were a number of legal
representations made by people from law societies who raised the
same concern. They pointed out that this clause which gave the
governor in council the authority to define spouse, and that
could be defining spouse as a same sex relationship, was actually
anti-democratic. People spoke out very loudly against it.
Then came clause by clause. This was all compressed into a very
small space of time. The committee sat very late that night
because the minister wanted the bill finished as quickly as
possible. Of course the committee does try to help the minister
in this regard.
This is what happened on the Liberal side of the round table. We
sat in a room with opposition members of the committee on one
side and Liberal members on the other side. As we went clause by
clause, there was a group concerned about section 43(i) on the
Liberal side. At about 10 o'clock at night, even though we were
still discussing other clauses, three members of the committee
held up debate on the citizenship bill. We complained that the
Reform Party was not co-operating and we used that as a pretext
to suspend debate on the bill.
We left the committee room and went to another room and phoned
the citizenship minister. We told her that we could not pass
this bill. We told her that we could not pass the clause as it
stood because we all felt, all of the members who were sitting on
the committee that night on the Liberal side, very strongly
against the clause.
The minister was quite upset. She said “Look, I don't like it
either, but it is impossible for me to change it without
consulting cabinet. Can you hold on for a few days?” We came
back and continued to go through clause by clause and that clause
was accepted. The bill in fact returned to the House for third
reading and we continued to be concerned.
1615
What happened subsequently, as everyone will remember, is that
the House prorogued and Bill C-63, the citizenship bill, actually
went into suspension during prorogation. Interestingly enough,
when the House resumed the government picked up just about every
other piece of legislation that it had before prorogation except
the citizenship bill. In fact, Madam Speaker, if you look at the
new citizenship bill now, Bill C-16, you will find this
particular offending clause missing. It is no longer there. It
was taken out.
The background to the background is that after this
confrontation of the Liberal backbenches and the minister—and it
was a polite confrontation but nevertheless it was a
confrontation—in the fall, at the same time as this clause
disappeared from the new citizenship bill, the Minister of
Justice held a meeting for all members of the Liberal caucus and
said that she was prepared to undertake an omnibus bill that
would fix the situation with respect to the definition of spouse
once and for all.
The hon. member for Kelowna is quite right. It is absolutely
wrong to leave it to judges to define things that are so
essential to the way we interact with one another as human
beings, much less as Canadians. What had been happening is that
because the charter indicated that we had to give equality to
people regardless of gender and regardless of sexual activity,
the courts had been more and more inclined to redefine marriage.
The majority of people in my riding would be absolutely opposed
to defining marriage as a same sex relationship. I would not
hesitate to vote against the bill in a flash if I felt that in
any way it was perpetuating the idea that marriage should be a
same sex relationship, but it is not. What it is in fact doing at
last is providing a means to give people in same sex
relationships the same kind of benefits that people have in
heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. The operative
word is common law.
Madam Speaker, you cannot be married and be in a common law
relationship. The whole idea of a common law relationship is
that it is not marriage. All the legislation is doing is making
a parallel. It is saying that a common law relationship can be
heterosexual for the purpose of benefits and a common law
relationship can be same sex. It is simple. No problem.
The problem though in the bill is twofold. The legislators
sometimes get very frustrated. In amending various sections of
the act, the legislatures chose to create this common law
definition of same sex relationship. In every instance, they
have said it is a common law relationship involving people of the
same sex cohabiting in a conjugal relationship.
Sometimes we people who are into the meaning of words just throw
up our hands because conjugal means heterosexual. It does not
mean same sex under any circumstances. I just cannot for the
life of me understand why the people who advised the justice
minister did not simply use the word sexual. What is wrong with
sexual? It covers everything. It is absolutely same sex and
opposite sex. Sexual covers it all but conjugal actually refers
specifically to a heterosexual relationship.
In a sense I sympathize with members like the hon. member for
Kelowna because when the drafters of legislation use a word
improperly, a word that has a pejorative meaning that is
completely contradictory to what is intended, of course we are
liable to have suspicions about the intent of the people who are
crafting the legislation.
In that context, I am hoping I can persuade the minister to, for
heaven's sake, change the word conjugal. I will try to move an
amendment on that subject.
1620
There is another simple way to alleviate many of the fears of
members in the House. I am convinced that the bill is important
and that it does at last take away from the courts the pressure
they have been putting on us to define same sex relationships. It
was very important to bring this back to parliament, and this
bill does that.
However, there is fear and worry out there. I sympathize with
that worry. I cannot for the life of me understand why we
cannot, simply to satisfy that concern, put a definition of
marriage in the bill, the classic definition: the union of one
man and one woman. It is simple. Just stick it in the bill.
The argument is a lawyer's argument “We cannot do that because
it is beautifully enshrined in common law and it will somehow box
in the courts if we narrow the definition of marriage”. We are
not in this place because we are lawyers. We are in this place
because we are legislators. We are here to shape society by the
good laws that we create. I have great sympathy for anyone in
the House who says “for Heaven's sake, don't be driven by the
supreme court necessarily. The supreme court can give some
direction but we do not have to do whatever the lawyers tell
us”.
I cannot for the life of me, nowhere up here, see a single
reason for not defining marriage in the legislation and
satisfying the many people in my community and Canadians across
the country who are worried about losing the traditional legal
definition of marriage.
I will speak briefly about my community. My riding contains a
large number of people who are very devout Christians. I have a
number of Christian communities, Protestant and Catholic, that
are very concerned about this issue. I also have a number of
people in my riding who do live in same sex relationships and who
contribute very well to the community.
This compromise that exists in the legislation where same sex
benefits are grouped very narrowly under common law
relationships—although we are not entirely satisfied that it is
completely done—and where marriage is protected, at least the
minister, I point out, has been very careful to eliminate the
word spouse from the legislation so that we do not get into that
trap. So that is gone from the legislation.
My sense of most people in my riding is that they really do
believe that people who live in same sex relationships and who
have a genuine dependency on one another should have the same
benefits as people in heterosexual relationships who develop
benefits so long as it is not a married relationship. Marriage
is the key thing.
I also have a problem with marriage. I do not believe marriage
can ever be considered a same sex relationship because marriage
implies the rights of adoption. I would never ever take away the
rights of children in order to satisfy the rights of adults.
Until evidence is to the contrary, and I do not think it will
ever occur, I think all things being equal there is not doubt
that heterosexual partners make more appropriate parents than do
same sex partners. So we cannot detract from the rights of
children.
All in all, the bill at least finally addresses what we on this
side of the House, and I think many across the country, have been
clamouring for, to take away the initiative of the courts that
were poised to define marriage and spouse as same sex
relationships which would be entirely inappropriate. I will
support the bill on that basis.
Having said that, what I want the members opposite to realize is
that many on this side fought very hard behind the scenes to have
the bill take the whole sexual component out entirely and to
address dependent partnerships. There is no question about what
is ultimately fair here. We should not be talking about sex at
all, any kind of sex. What we should be talking about is the
relationships that occur between human beings. They may be of
the same sex. They may be of the opposite sex. They may be a
sister and sister or a brother and brother. They may be any kind
of combination where after a while they have lived together and
they have become emotionally dependent on one another.
It is not just material dependency. It is that real emotional
dependency that can occur in families.
1625
In the case of the Citizenship Act, what I wanted to see there
was a dependent partnership relationship occur where someone
could adopt a child when he or she were serving overseas and have
that child be treated as a dependent in a dependent relationship
for the purposes of the Citizenship Act. However, we did not
achieve that. Unfortunately, the government has said—and I have
to accept it—that there are aspects of the dependent partner
concept that it has not fully examined.
It is certainly true. We must be careful about plunging ahead
with something that is really novel just in case we create
problems for people to whom we had not intended. The justice
minister has said—I do not know whether she has said it in the
House but she has certainly said it on the side—that she is
prepared to study this issue of dependent partners forthwith.
We have a bill that addresses a current problem, gets the court
out of parliaments, settles the legitimate concerns of people who
have same sex relationships and who have been denied the
equivalent benefits and other opportunities of heterosexual
people living outside marriage. We have solved that problem with
this legislation.
However, this is only a beginning. It is an important
beginning. What I like about it is that it is a beginning that
actually began in this place, in this parliament, in a committee,
at least for me, but I really do believe it is a beginning that
began here among these MPs and the government has taken action.
In that sense, I think the government should be congratulated.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I understand
that he supports the bill, but that he would have appreciated a
number of clarifications.
This bill does not and cannot concern marriage. Some members of
the Bloc Quebecois and other parties find it regrettable, but it
was the supreme court which asked the legislator to recognize
homosexual relationships as conjugal relationships. This ruling
was made in the M. v H. case, on May 20, 1999.
I want to ask the hon. member if he agrees with me that what is
at issue now is the recognition of same sex spouses.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I actually think the bill
is quite clear. As long as we keep before us the idea that
something that exists in common law is a common law relationship
because it is not marriage. In syntax and in grammatical sense,
if it is common law it means that it is not marriage. Whether
the common law relationship is same sex or heterosexual it does
not matter. The final answer is that if it is common law it is
not marriage. In fact, we may put it in another way. The bill
creates a condition where if you are living in sin and getting
benefits, it does not matter how you are living in sin.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
commend the hon. member who just spoke. He is one of those
members on the opposite side of the House who actually makes
sense every once in a while. I think that is very complimentary.
On the other hand, the hon. member seems to be very happy with
the progress that has been made. He then goes on to say “I'm
going to support this bill simply because there is a little bit
of progress here”. The government has made a little bit of
progress, but with that progress it may be creating all kinds of
other problems that it has not anticipated.
The member does a compromise but has not studied the full
problem, so now what is he creating? Does he know what he has?
It seems to me that the hon. member should very carefully
re-examine his position because it made such eminently good sense
and then all of a sudden he said “I'm going to support this
because we got something”. It is not enough.
1630
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, the pressure was coming
from the courts. Parliament simply had to act. I do not know
about the members on the opposite side, but many of us on this
side were getting very, very panicky because the supreme court
and other levels of courts were more and more interfering or
directing the definition of spouse, and not so much the
definition of marriage. They were more and more inclining toward
defining spouse as a same sex relationship.
What this bill does is that it cuts supreme court off at the
pass. It stops the courts from defining a spouse or marriage in
a way that the vast majority of Canadians would find
unacceptable. However it is true that the bill does not go far
enough. The reason it does not fully explore the idea of
dependent partnerships—and I have to take the minister at her
word—is that she feels there are implications to dependent
partnerships that may have adverse consequences.
On the one hand we solve a problem that is current, which is
what we should doing. We should fix the problem that is current,
but as far as I am concerned this is only a interim fix. The
real answer will be when we can extend this kind of thing to all
dependent relationships and take sex out of it.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I quite enjoyed the speech of the hon. member on the other side.
I agreed with most of it. There are a couple of problems. The
things I do not agree with are not part of the bill. We seem to
be spending an awful lot of time talking about marriage and
spouse. There is not a mention anywhere in the bill of these two
words, yet the debate has continuously revolved around those
words.
I agree with the member that it is up to the House to define
marriage and spouse. That is what we should have done, but I am
afraid it will have to be done in another bill. Does the hon.
member agree that we spent an awful lot of time on this bill
debating the wrong thing?
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, the reason why we are not
debating spouse is because one of the things this bill does is
take the word spouse out the various acts and legislation it
affects and replaces the word spouse with common law partner.
Spouse is very much a part of this legislation because it takes
the word spouse out of all kinds of other laws.
No, I do not think we are debating the wrong thing. I have to
go back to my original point. The only thing to me that is
really missing in this legislation that I would have liked to see
is changing the word conjugal to sexual. Let us be upfront about
it. Let us put the proper definition of marriage in the bill and
satisfy everyone's fears.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker,
perseverance pays off.
I have trouble figuring out the member's position. I must
congratulate the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who guessed
the member is going to support the bill.
The member started by saying that it was both a bad and a good
bill, that he was against it, but that he would support it. He
was against same sex couples being married, but he is willing to
accept their staying together and being recognized. I really
have trouble understanding the member, and people who are
listening to us probably have the same problem as I have.
If the House recognizes same sex couples, it must give them the
same benefits and obligations as heterosexual couples. If we
give them the same benefits and obligations, are we ready to
recognize that a homosexual couple, a gay or a lesbian couple,
can have a family and adopt children? What will happen when a
homosexual couple applies for an international adoption? We know
that heterosexual couples, a man and a woman, can adopt children
internationally.
1635
For example, a homosexual couple, two men, applies to China to
adopt a little girl. The investigation will show they are both
men, they have been living together for several years, they are
working, they own a house, and have a good income. But will
foreign countries be willing to give children up for adoption to
homosexual couples?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, I am quite prepared to
say that homosexual couples could make good parents and that
there are heterosexual couples who make bad parents. The
difference between the common law relationship for same sex
couples is that they still will not be able to adopt, in my view,
but they will be subject to the discretion of the authorities.
However, married couples in my view should have the right to
adopt. The danger with giving same sex couples the privilege of
marriage is that in getting the legal status of marriage they
might get the right to adopt children. I am not prepared to give
them that right because if we give rights to one group we take
rights from another. I am not sure that children, all things
being equal, are better off under same sex parents as opposed to
heterosexual parents.
However, nothing in this legislation so far as I can see, and I
am not a specialist, precludes same sex couples from having the
opportunity to adopt. The only difference is that the various
authorities that carry out adoption procedures will have a
certain amount of discretion that they might not ordinarily have
with married couples.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Huron—Bruce, Elections Canada and
the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Agriculture.
[Translation]
I must advise the hon. members that from now on speeches will be
10 minutes and will not be followed by questions or comments.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wanted to
state a very interesting position on which I would have liked my
colleagues to have the opportunity to question me, but I will
leave it for third reading or for another life maybe, where I
would be reincarnated as an homosexual. This is not the case for
now, but I have absolutely no problem with the idea of two men
or two women living together. I think that we should not confuse
things.
The only thing I noticed in reading the documents provided to me
by the research staff of the Bloc Quebecois or the House is that
a new definition of common law couples was being proposed, which
would include same sex partners. This is an omnibus bill of a
sort, which is designed to amend 68 acts.
I was listening to my colleagues who mentioned earlier the
various forces and balances in our society.
There are three recognized branches of government: the executive
branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch.
Everybody knows that. I have often been among those who accused
the Liberal federal government of lacking courage and letting
others dictate its legislation, philosophy and parliamentary
strategies. I often criticized it for modeling its policies on
court decisions. But these things happen in society.
There are courts that can have a certain influence on this
House. The executive branch always has the power to decide, and
so does the legislative branch. The 301 members of the House are
part of the legislative branch and will be able to express their
views and vote on this issue.
There are also various organized groups, like the labour unions
I belonged to for 20 years, which have a certain influence.
Gay and lesbian groups too have a certain influence in this
debate. That is only natural, since are directly affected by
this issue.
1640
I am one of those who feel that the time has now come to
recognize those rights. Moreover, once again, broadminded
Quebec has jumped the gun on the feds. Last year, Mrs. Goupil,
the Quebec Minister of Justice, brought in amendments to 28
Quebec statutes in order to recognize this.
Returning to my union experience—20 years of it—I was a grievance
officer. I negotiated public sector collective agreements. We
were governed by certain laws and certain collective agreements.
I was always greatly disturbed when contacted by gays or
lesbians saying “I have lived with my partner for a number of
years, but when I die, I cannot leave that partner any part of
what I have earned here, working day in and day out, in this
institution”.
I did not find that right. We tried to get the collective
agreement changed, but we kept coming up against the statutes.
When it came down to it, all these statutes told us that a
common law spouse was not a same sex partner. I found that
profoundly unfair.
This demands a certain openmindedness as well. I am no
reactionary, not one to say that society is in a terrible way,
that it will be all over within a hundred years because same sex
unions are permitted. That is not what I think.
A certain percentage of the population is this way, and I
respect their point of view. I think the time has come to
correct that.
Seventy-three per cent of the people share the same reasoning,
which is not insignificant. We are all in politics here, and I
am just as happy to be on the side of the 73% as against them.
Mathematical and especially political reasoning hold that
agreeing with the majority, and a very strong majority at that,
offers a greater likelihood of popularity than if the reverse
were true.
I am not saying that just in political terms. I was open to
that and was totally in support of having same sex couples
recognized as common law partners.
I will now speak to you as the Indian affairs critic. Since
last week, native people have contacted me on a number of
occasions. In the 68 laws that will be amended, there is the
Indian Act and the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. This act led to
the James Bay agreement.
As usual, the people were not consulted. This is not the first
time this has happened. From the first day the Europeans
arrived in America, the native peoples were not consulted.
When the two founding peoples decided to draw up a
Constitution—in 1867—the native peoples were left to their own
devices. And yet these people were here and had rights.
Unfortunately they were not consulted and they should have been.
I do not begrudge the official responsible for that a whole
lot. The official is asked by the Department of Justice to make
amendments and add new definitions to all the laws.
He takes all the legislation he has before him and makes an
amendment each time there is something to amend, in line with
the desired policy.
I cannot blame the public servant, but the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development should have known that this
affected native peoples under his jurisdiction. Different
concepts are involved. I have risen in the House on many
occasions to make this point.
A white person will tend to mark boundaries and draw up deeds.
It is not like that on the reserves. The reserves are often
communal lands belonging to no one person; they belong to
everyone. This can have repercussions for them.
Once again, the native peoples have not been consulted, just as
they were not consulted about very important bills passed in
this House even before our time.
In 1985, the government passed Bill C-31, which allowed
aboriginal women to reclaim their status. Again, status is at
issue. Prior to 1985, native women who married whites lost
their status, as did all their offspring. However, a native man
who married a white did not lose his rights.
1645
The government saw that there was a problem and said that it
would do something about it. But it did not consult any
aboriginals, with the result that, when these negotiations were
taking place, aboriginals warned that the budgets being
considered would soon be inadequate if all the native women
whose status was going to be recognized returned to the
reserves. The government said that, first, it did not think
that there would be many women who would go after their new
status and, second, if they did, the budgets would be adjusted
accordingly. Neither scenario materialized.
That is what happened. Many women returned to the reserve with
their offspring, the budgets were not adjusted, and the
aboriginal people found themselves with problems.
This is a change to the Indian Act and I might remind hon.
members that the former incumbent, Ron Irwin, tried here in this
House to bring in many changes to the Indian Act and was
rebuffed. The aboriginal people did not want them. We need to
understand why. It may be an old statute, but it is all that
aboriginals on the reserve have. It is therefore important for
them to be consulted before touching it. They are greatly
concerned about this.
I will quote, in closing, Grand Chief Phil Fontaine, who said
the following in a recent press release about his feelings on
this bill “The federal government is unilaterally announcing
changes to the Indian Act that will affect all our citizens in
Canada.
First nations governments had not received any advance notice as
to the extent of the changes, their impact on our communities
and the resources required to effect these changes”.
This refers directly, by way of example, to what I have
mentioned about Bill C-31.
Chief Fontaine concluded by saying “I am disappointed that
neither the Minister of Indian Affairs or the Minister of
Justice would give us the courtesy of a call to inform us of
this legislative change, except for a notification letter, which
contained no details sent to my office late in the day Thursday.
I hope this is not the government's new approach to first
nations participation”.
I think we will have to listen to the native peoples. It is not
too late, we are only at second reading of the bill, which will
be referred to committee. I think that the native peoples have
told me they wish to be heard. This will have to be given special
attention.
With respect to the bill before us as a whole, I reiterate that
I have no objection and that I will support it this evening,
that I will try to have amendments made to reflect the very
specific aspect of the aboriginal element, and that at third
reading I will support this bill. Obviously, it will be a free
vote this evening for us. I can say right off that I will
support this bill. I think the time has come.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to add my voice in support of Bill C-23.
As the Minister of Justice has already explained, there are
powerful reasons to endorse the bill. Of all the arguments, I
believe none is more compelling than the fact that ensuring equal
treatment under the law should be a basic standard of a fair and
just society.
Canadians have an unwavering faith in the values enshrined in
our charter of rights and freedoms. We believe heart and soul
that there should be no discrepancy between our words and our
deeds. We are determined that our constitutionally guaranteed
rights should be a daily fact of life for every woman and man in
Canada.
Equality before the law is the very foundation of our nation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
This is certainly an excellent speech, one that I wish I could
understand. Unfortunately, there is some problem with
simultaneous interpretation.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That has probably
filled the hon. member for Burlington full of confidence, because
I thought her English was really good. We will give the
interpreter a couple of seconds.
The hon. member for Burlington will start where she left off.
1650
Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to
the bill.
This country has a long and enviable history of commitment to
human rights, dignity and equal opportunity. This is not
rhetoric; it is a reality of which every Canadian can be very
proud.
The lives of gay and lesbian Canadians and the core values all
Canadians hold dear are at stake if we continue to allow
discrimination to exclude any group of Canadians. Bill C-23
reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to ensure that
federal policies, social programs and laws reflect societal
values and realities. This responsible, measured and practical
legislation recognizes the indisputable fact that same sex common
law couples in Canada are entitled to fair and equal treatment
under the law.
In recognition of this reality, Bill C-23 will amend all
relevant statutes to extend to same sex couples the same benefits
and obligations that are available to common law opposite sex
partners. This legislation is the most responsible way to meet
our constitutional obligations. It is also in keeping with the
majority opinion in Canada. Public polling consistently finds
that Canadians endorse the position that same sex partners should
be accorded the same legal treatment as opposite sex common law
couples.
In June 1999 Angus Reid found that 63% of Canadians believed
that same sex couples should be entitled to the same benefits and
obligations as unmarried common law couples. In another survey
conducted a year earlier, 84% of Canadians agreed that same sex
couples should be protected from discrimination. These numbers
tell us that Canadians are far ahead of their elected
representatives in recognizing the moral and legal necessity of
amending federal laws.
As others have already pointed out, hundreds of businesses
across the country already extend same sex benefits to their
employees as does the federal government. Over 200 leading
businesses in Canada, such as Bell Canada, Sears, IBM, the
Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Bank of Montreal, Air Canada and
Canadian Airlines, all consider it good policy to extend benefits
to the same sex partners of their employees and they have done so
for years. So too have 30 municipalities, 35 universities,
countless hospitals, libraries and community and social service
organizations.
Likewise, all but three provinces provide social benefits to
same sex and opposite sex common law couples in their workforces.
The three largest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec, have recently introduced or have already implemented the
necessary changes to bring their laws and policies and practices
into line with today's social reality.
Canadians, courts and companies have acted to bring fairness to
all citizens. Members of parliament must do the same. We have
an opportunity to bring federal laws into line with Canadian
values as reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and interpreted by the supreme court. We have an
obligation to correct the shortcomings in our statutes, a duty to
ensure they are constitutional and a responsibility to ensure
fairness for all Canadians.
Much has been said in this House and during this debate about
changes to the definition of marriage. Let me be very clear.
There will be no change in the definition of marriage. A motion
passed in this very House last year confirmed that marriage is
the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all
others. This will not change.
Importantly, the changes we are bringing forward confer benefits
and obligations on same sex couples. For example, currently in
married and common law relationships, the combined income of the
man and woman are used to determine eligibility for the GST-HST
credit. Same sex partners currently apply for the credit as
unrelated individuals and perhaps in some instances even gain
financially by doing so. In the interest of fairness, Bill C-23
will impose the same obligations on same sex partners as those of
opposite sex common law partners.
Clearly, this is thoughtful, responsible legislation. It
recognizes and reconciles our legal and moral obligations to
ensure fairness and equality for all Canadians. It outlines
obligations and benefits. Perhaps most important, Bill C-23
makes it clear that Canadians will no longer tolerate
discrimination on any ground, including sexual orientation. It
reaffirms our profound commitment to fairness and justice. This
bill is truly a cause for celebration.
At the beginning of the 21st century all Canadians can put
behind them the idea that gay and lesbian Canadians are less than
equal citizens.
With the passage of this legislation we can write a new chapter
in the evolving story of this great nation, a story of equality
and respect for all which our children and grandchildren will be
proud to retell.
1655
Generations of Canadians have worked hard to build a country
where people of different beliefs, religions and race and ways of
viewing the world can coexist and thrive together. Men and women
across the country in communities from Gander to Victoria to
Resolute Bay have come to recognize our diversity as a source of
national strength, inspiration and pride. This legislation
reflects those values and I hope all hon. members will support
the bill.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member. I too would like to enter
the debate on Bill C-23 to speak out on behalf of a minority
group in the country, that group being Christians.
All of us must remember that every morning we start with a
prayer in this place. The laws we have developed in this place
are also developed because of our Christian heritage. I speak out
on behalf of the traditions, society and foundations we have in
Canada.
Bill C-23 was introduced in the House about 10 days ago. A
number of people have phoned my office or written in by e-mail,
by letter or have faxed me. I have letters from two well-known
organizations, Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Fellowship
of Canada which has several thousand members in Canada. They
deserve to be heard in this debate because they believe, as I do,
that the union of a man and a woman is something sacred in this
country.
That is why the Parliament of Canada extended benefits in the
first place. If we look back at the family allowance program, an
old program which is no longer with us, the Government of Canada
and Parliament of Canada developed that program because the union
of a man and a woman is very special. They procreate; they have
children. The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada
extended benefits to the family because there is a special status
for that family and it is appropriate.
The recent booklet by Human Resources Development Canada,
“Social Security in Canada: Background Facts”, answers some
questions. It states that our social safety net was intended to
meet the needs of the traditional married family. The booklet
states: “Much of our social security structure and our work
arrangements were developed to meet the needs of the average
Canadian household as it existed”. It goes on to state that
households consisted of two parents with two children. This was
back in the fifties and sixties.
The intent of parliament when designing social benefits like the
former family allowance program and current child tax benefit was
to encourage and to protect the union of a man and a woman, and
their children. Marriage was the key to that union.
Families are facing difficult times. Crippling taxation has been
foisted on them by the last six or seven years of federal Liberal
government mismanagement. Both parents are being forced to go out
to work. Day care and child care expenses are escalating. There
is a tremendous amount of pressure on the traditional family.
What has not changed is that marriage, the union of a
heterosexual couple, is the backbone of Canadian society and the
cornerstone of public policy because it is the only union that
can procreate with the intent of caring for and raising children
over the long term. It is not an institution that should be
unilaterally changed by the courts, bureaucrats or the federal
Liberal government.
1700
As many of us know, effectively raising children requires a
sustained expenditure of resources. It is to the benefit of all
society that the next generation of children grows into healthy
adults. Given the fact of married couples who are dedicated to
raising children, the next generation requires continued support
by parliament, by the 301 members of parliament to meet those
children's needs.
Last June parliament directed the Liberal government to affirm
the definition of marriage in legislation with wide support of
the Reform Party motion. By introducing Bill C-23, however, the
Liberals once again are ignoring the will of the Canadian people.
Bill C-23 strips the institution of marriage of its unique public
policy recognition. Not only does Bill C-23 fail to affirm the
definition of marriage. It actually repeals the definition of
marriage while it redefines terms such as related person and
family. In many instances the term spouse is being replaced by
the word survivor.
Bill C-23 introduces a new concept of common law partner which
is defined as a person cohabiting with another person in a
conjugal relationship for a year. The legislation fails to
precisely define conjugal but alludes to the fact that it is
referring to sexual activity.
Our social benefits were created to support and sustain the
unique institution of marriage and the rearing of children.
Extending the benefits of a traditional married family to two
people who happen to live together in a conjugal relationship for
one year is unfair and creates inequality. Why? It is unfair
because the Liberals have chosen to extend benefits based solely
on the presence of sexual activity while completely ignoring the
unique role of marriage and child rearing.
Bill C-23 creates inequality because it blatantly discriminates
against other important relationships of dependency where no
sexual activity occurs whatsoever. It is not uncommon for
elderly siblings, for instance, to live together or a parent with
adult children. In fact poll respondents who indicate acceptance
of benefits going to same sex couples show a stronger degree of
support for benefits going to any relationship of economic
dependence.
The Liberal government has missed the mark on Bill C-23. Many
Canadians are clearly telling the government that economic
dependence, not sexual activity, should determine the benefits
and entitlements. The Liberal government should be required to
demonstrate a clear and compelling public interest for extending
benefits based on one's sexual activity and not economic
dependency. The Liberals cannot because there are no compelling
reasons.
Bill C-23 is legislation that is being driven by the courts and
not by the economic needs of individual Canadians. In fact I
would argue that the Liberals do not care about the economic
needs of Canadians one bit. Since 1993 the Liberals have
increased taxes every year through bracket creep. They have cut
transfer payments to the provinces. They have cut employment
insurance. They have increased payroll taxes. They have refused
to index income tax rates with inflation.
Because sexual activity is the sole criterion for determining
who receives benefits and who does not, Canadian taxpayers are
wondering how the government will know whether a couple is truly
having a conjugal relationship. For the past month Canadians
have witnessed how the Liberals have bungled the whole scheme of
grants. Granting benefits based on something difficult to prove
will create more havoc and abuse than Human Resources Development
Canada or any other department.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: What about a heterosexual couple?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, I know the member from British
Columbia is loud and proud. He is interrupting my speech, but I
believe a homosexual couple would be far more interested in
seeing broad based tax cuts delivered by the government than the
benefits that we are talking about today in Bill C-23.
I will wrap up my speech this afternoon by saying again that I
speak today on behalf of a minority group, that minority group
being Christians who feel that the legislature of the country has
a responsibility to set aside and make laws based on the
uniqueness of the marriage between a man and woman and extending
benefits to make sure that family unit is protected and looked
after by the federal government.
1705
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the 10 minutes I am allotted I begin my remarks by
acknowledging and thanking my government, the House leader and in
particular the chief government whip for permitting me the
opportunity to speak today. It is well known to them at least
that I do not support the legislation as written and I am glad to
have the opportunity to explain why.
I recognize that in the House most if not all members of
parliament including myself have made up their minds. Most if not
all the media has made up its mind on the issue and the courts
appear to be making up their minds, so my remarks are addressed
to my constituents.
I intend to reproduce these remarks in my spring householder. I
want my constituents to know that I stand here today to represent
their views as they have communicated them directly to me over
the 11 years I have been a member of parliament.
I also speak today to those ordinary Canadians who may be
listening and who have not yet made up their minds. I ask them
to continue to listen to the debate carefully and objectively. I
hope to some degree that I am speaking to future generations who
may review these debates for historical or other reasons.
I cannot support the bill as written and therefore I cannot
support it in principle. I will be moving amendments at report
stage. If they do not pass I cannot support the bill at report
stage or at third reading.
Why not? When I was discussing this issue with my colleagues,
in particular with cabinet colleagues, I asked for three things
before I could consider extending benefits beyond the benefits
currently granted by the House. First, I asked for a definition
of marriage to be enshrined in statute so as to protect it from
judicial attack. I asked to extend the benefits based not on
sexuality and sexual behaviour but on economic dependency. I
also asked that there be full and complete debate in parliament
including not invoking time allocation or closure.
There is no definition of marriage in Bill C-23. There is no
extension of benefits based on economic dependency and there is a
stifling of debate by invoking time allocation.
In my view the bill is fatally flawed for the following reasons.
It uses the term conjugal to include same sex relationships. This
is, quite simply, incorrect. The ordinary meaning of the word
conjugal in the English language is as follows: “Of marriage;
the right of sexual intercourse with a spouse; of the mutual
relation of husband and wife”. To the question “why the word
conjugal has been used to describe same sex couples” the justice
department answers that the term conjugal has a meaning in law
that is different from that in dictionaries. This also is simply
incorrect.
What is the legal meaning of conjugal? It is:
Of or belonging to marriage or the married state; suitable or
appropriate to the married state or to married persons;
matrimonial; connubial.
The source of that definition is Black's Law Dictionary. As
anyone who is listening will recognize, it has the same meaning
as the definition in the English dictionary.
The justice department goes on to say that the term conjugal has
been used for 40 years to refer to common law relationships. This
is only half true. It has always, until very recently, referred
solely to heterosexual partners in a common law marriage.
The meaning is now being expanded, first by activist judges such
as those in the Court of Appeal of Ontario in the case of
Rosenberg and in the Supreme Court of Canada in M v H,
completely ignoring the contrary view stated by the very same
Supreme Court of Canada in Egan and Nesbit.
Therefore in my judgment and in my analysis there is a hidden
agenda, namely to allow these same activist judges to eventually
declare the current prohibition of marriages between same sex
people to be unconstitutional.
1710
On June 8, 1999, we passed a resolution in the House supported
by the vast majority of my Liberal colleagues. I will only quote
part of it, that parliament will take all necessary steps to
preserve this definition. What definition? The definition of
marriage.
I suggest this is a perfect opportunity to do what parliament
has already voted on, that is to preserve the definition of
marriage. How could it be done? Very simply by taking this
omnibus bill which deals with 68 other statutes, adding the Marriage
Act and including in the definition of marriage which the House
agreed to in June 1999. According to the Minister of Justice
there is no need to do this. If there is no need to do this then
there is no harm in doing it, so why not put it in? On June 8,
1999, the Minister of Justice said in her speech:
The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied
in Canada comes from an 1866 British case which holds that
marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion
of all others”. That case and that definition are considered
clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts.
That is simply not correct. She goes on to say that the Ontario
Court, General Division, recently upheld in Layland and Beaulne
the definition of marriage. That was a majority decision of the
court. If the definition is as clear in law as the justice
minister says, why was it not a unanimous decision of the Ontario
court? In fact it was not. It was, as she states, a majority
decision, a majority of two to one. Why? It was because one of
the judges said that it was perfectly acceptable to have marriage
between same sex partners.
If the law is as clear as the justice minister says, why was
that decision two to one? Why were there academics who supported
that position in the Ontario court if, as the justice minister
says, all academics in Canada agree with that definition? In
fact this is not the case and the definition of marriage is being
challenged on a daily basis.
Why not put it in this statute to stifle any further question
and to ensure that the will of the House as stated on June 8,
1999, is dealt with? It is because there is a hidden agenda to
permit the courts to attack it.
I see I have one minute left. That does not give me nearly
enough opportunity to discuss the other points, but I do want to
mention the questionable poll the government is using. I say
questionable because it is only mentioning parts of it. I have
the poll here. Let me read the final question that was put
forward.
It has been suggested that benefits and obligations should not
depend on relationships like spouses but on any relationship of
economic dependency where people are living together, such as
elderly siblings living together or a parent and adult child
living together, et cetera. Do you agree or disagree with this
view?
Seventy-one per cent of Canadians agreed that benefits should be
given on the basis of economic dependency in the government's own
poll, not on the basis of whom a person is having sex with.
I say on behalf of my constituents, 86% of whom have clearly
told me that they dispute and do not agree with the Supreme Court
of Canada decision in M v H, that we should protect the
definition of marriage. If we are to extend benefits, let us
extend them to everyone in a position of economic dependency and
not on the basis of what they do in the bedroom.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the House of Commons deals with very many important issues that
are fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. There
is no issue more important than the very basis of our society,
our family and our family units. Any society in the world is no
stronger than its smallest unit. Unfortunately legislation
frequently chips away at the ability of Canadians to organize
themselves in a way to enhance their family unit.
1715
Bill C-23, an act to modernize the Statutes of Canada in
relation to benefits and obligations, would amend 68 federal
laws, affecting key departments and agencies. The bill creates a
new term called common law partner, defined as a person
cohabiting with another person of either sex in a conjugal
relationship for a year. Probably the most massive flaw with
this legislation is that the word conjugal is undefined.
The government wants us to believe that this bill merely gives
same sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual
couples. Mainstream news media parrot the same line. The
definitions of spouse and marriage have been under aggressive
attack for many years. The courts have asked politicians,
elected by Canadians, to express the opinions of Canadians in
law. In 1995, one member of the Supreme Court Canada, Mr.
Justice La Forest, said:
The heterosexual relationship is firmly anchored in the
biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have
the unique ability to procreate. Most children are the products
of these relationships, and they are generally cared for and
nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense,
marriage is by nature heterosexual. It would be possible to
legally define marriage to include homosexual couples, but this
would not change the biological and social realities that
underline the traditional marriage.
In June 1998, in the wake of court actions chipping away at the
definition of marriage, members of parliament voted 216 to 55 in
support of a motion which stated that “marriage is and should
remain the union of a man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others and that parliament will take all necessary steps to
preserve this definition of marriage in Canada”. Bill C-23
violates both the letter and the spirit of that motion, in spite
of the fact that it was passed overwhelmingly by members of
parliament.
The justice minister stated during the debate: “We on this
side of the House of Commons agree that the institution of
marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of
many Canadians. Indeed, worldwide it plays an important part in
all society, second only to the fundamental importance of
family”.
As noted by the justice minister, every society in the world,
whether based on religious or non-religious standards, holds the
uniqueness of the heterosexual relationship and the family unit
in a unique and special position. There are social benefits
extended by every nation relating to the traditional family unit.
Going into the 21st century it must be recognized that there are
many single parent families, sometimes based on choice, sometimes
based on uncontrolled events. This is why Canadian society had
decided, along with the rest of the world's nations, to extend
special benefits to people in relationships that are similar to
heterosexual traditional family units. Rightfully, those
benefits are extended to single parents along with family units
related by blood, marriage and adoption.
The justice minister has stated that she is proceeding with the
legislation because the courts made her do it. Yet in 1995
Justice Gonthier said:
The courts must therefore be wary of second-guessing legislative
social policy choices relating to the status, rights and
obligations of marriage, a basic institution of our society and
intimately related to its fundamental values.
The supreme court has not demanded or even hinted that it wants
this widespread, sweeping power which eliminates the special
status for heterosexual couples in marriage.
In the last eight years there has been an amazing erosion of
legislative support for traditional marriage, and this in spite
of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence showing the
benefits of traditional marriage to children, adults and society.
The government has eliminated any incentive under family law to
marry. The erosion has been led by certain politicians.
For example, in 1994, when the member for Mississauga West was a
provincial MPP in Ontario, he said this about similar Ontario
legislation:
Some of us who are opposed to this bill find it difficult to
accept the lecturing that seems to go that if you are opposed to
the bill you are somehow opposed to democracy. I have just had
it up to here with being called a racist or a bigot because I
cannot accept the fact that the spouse is a member of the same
sex. That is my right, indeed my responsibility. I have an
obligation on the part of the people I represent and on the part
of my family, from (the) heart, (to) speak my mind on this issue.
I reject any attempt to try and muzzle people or try to
intimidate us to try and paint this as some kind of human rights
issue.
1720
In a spectacular flip-flop the hon. member for Mississauga West
this month stood in his place and made what amounted to a full
retreat, wherein he labelled myself and other members of the
Reform Party as he had been labelled six years ago. He attacks
us in the way he had been attacked. What monumental hypocrisy.
The Liberal House leader, who is ramming this legislation
through the House today, in 1994 said:
I object to any suggestion that would have homosexual couples
treated the same way as heterosexual couples. Although I will
fight against any form of discrimination whether it is on the
basis of race, sex, religion or other, I do not believe
homosexuals should be treated as families.
This was the government House leader speaking six years ago. He
continued:
My wife Maryanne and I do not claim we are homosexual. Why
should homosexuals pretend they form a family?
Five and a half years later, as House leader, he is the enforcer
of the Prime Minister's iron fist to all Liberal backbenchers
that they support this motion.
Specifically to the case of benefits, when the current health
minister was Minister of Justice in 1996 he said:
—that in the year since March 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada
decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that
notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within
section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited,
the benefits do not automatically flow; so much for logic and
that is the law.
Four years ago the Liberal Government of Canada clearly stated
that it did not support an extension to same sex partners of
pension benefits and other benefits, yet here we are today with
the government speeding legislation through the House of Commons
which will do exactly that.
The protection of the traditional family unit is so important to
our society that the definition of marriage must be protected by
legislation. The spectacular flip-flops of Liberal cabinet
ministers and backbenchers now that they are in power cries out
for consistent legislation and specific direction for our courts.
This is fundamental to the lives of every citizen in Canada. In
spite of the feel good, fuzzy reasoning by Liberal backbenchers
today, the effect of this bill is to depreciate the unique value
and special meaning of marriage in Canada. Any society in the
world is no stronger than its smallest unit, the family. Bill
C-23 not only undercuts marriage and the family, it is just plain
bad law.
[Translation]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of
Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, this omnibus bill is a major step
toward equality, since it seeks to correct the inequalities
based on sexual orientation.
[English]
This omnibus bill to modernize benefits and obligations is
legislation whose time has come. It is legislation that speaks
very clearly to the issue of equality.
Within our country the issue of equality is carried forth in our
charter of rights and freedoms. It is brought forward in our
Canadian Human Rights Act. It is served by issues such as
employment equity, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, citizenship
and immigration. There are many acts and pieces of legislation
in this country which deal with the issue of inequality.
We have identified over the years that there are very different
ways in which inequality can occur. There are many barriers.
People say it is due to various reasons, most of which are about
differences. We have shown very clearly, the courts have shown
very clearly and we have seen through the knowledge of people,
communities and the manner in which they live that there is in
fact inequality in this country based on sexual orientation.
I was a physician for 23 years. In practising medicine I saw
firsthand the destruction and damage that discrimination causes,
especially to persons whose sexual orientation is different from
the mainstream. The simple right to call themselves a family we
have heard over and over again being denigrated by Reform members
across the way.
I have heard Reformers say that benefits and obligations have to
do only with family and that has to do only with children. I am
here to tell the Reform Party that there are gay and lesbian
couples who actually have children. I know it is a shock to
members across the way, but they actually have children from
previous marriages or children whom they have adopted.
1725
The issue of children and families has to do with a unit, as the
last member who spoke said; a unit that is loving and supportive,
a unit that cares for and raises children. We know that gay and
lesbian couples do this. If it is about children, then the bill
is doing exactly the right thing, ensuring that persons with
children have equal benefits and obligations.
I have also heard Reform members suggest that this is not about
children at all, that this is really about sex and who has sex,
and that the term conjugal means sex and only sex. The term
conjugal in the dictionary is about sex. Under the law there are
many criteria which are used to define a conjugal relationship.
Sex is only one of them.
I am told that by bringing forward the bill we will suddenly be
going into the bedrooms of the nation. We never have before
concerning the issue of married couples. I do not know if all
married couples have sex. Should we be questioning them and then
deny them benefits and obligations based on their ability to have
or wish to have sex? We have not done that.
Forty years ago when we brought heterosexual common law couples
into legislation we did not ask a question about sex. Why do we
suddenly have to ask a question about sex now? Are we not
applying a very different set of rules? Is applying a very
different set of rules and a very different set of criteria not
exactly what discrimination is about? How is it that this issue
becomes one of importance?
On the issue of rights and obligations, we are able to ensure
that homosexual couples who have lived together and have told the
world so by the way they behave toward each other enjoy the same
benefits as heterosexual common law couples. They have bought
homes together. They have lived together as faithful couples for
many years. Are we saying that because of differences, because
they are the same sex and not heterosexual, they do not deserve
the rights and obligations of others when they have committed to
each other in a relationship?
This omnibus legislation is not only about rights; it also
speaks to obligation. When a couple commits to a conjugal
relationship that couple takes on the obligation to support each
other. If the couple separates, there is a mechanism and a
process by which the individuals can continue to support each
other, whether financially or through the division of property.
This speaks to the obligation of people who have made a
commitment to each other.
Members of the opposition have brought in the red herring of
other dependent relationships, saying that if two sisters live
together this should be so, and if a parent and a child live
together this should be so.
One member said that we do not know if the people involved in
those relationships wish to accept the obligation. If they
should separate, if the child should leave the parent, will the
child be legally responsible to that parent later on, to support
the parent or divide assets or whatever? We do not know enough
about those kinds of relationships to decide whether we can apply
the same legislation to them. There is time to do that. There
is time to discuss it. Many of these issues involve provincial
jurisdiction. We will talk with the provinces. We will look at
the impact. We will look at whether people in other
relationships wish to have the obligations as well as the
benefits.
The truth is that we have discriminated against couples who have
identified themselves as living in conjugal relationships purely
and simply because of one reason: they are not heterosexual.
The government has gone a great distance since it came to power
in 1993. It has moved the equality agenda forward by amending
the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as a
prohibited grounds for discrimination. It has added sexual
orientation to hate crimes legislation. It has moved for
Treasury Board to apply health benefits and dental benefits to
same sex couples. It has moved forward recently in a Treasury
Board bill to ensure pensions for same sex couples. This is just
a logical extension.
Regardless, the supreme court and various human rights
commissions across the country have told us very clearly that we
have discriminated, in fact and in law, against same sex couples.
We have moved to change that. It is not only that the supreme
court has told us that. It is that this is a progression of
things we started in 1993.
1730
This is about equality and about fairness. With my hat as
Secretary of State for the Status of Women, equality and fairness
is what I am bound to try to achieve for all women in Canada,
whether they be women of colour, whether they be women of
different religions, whether they be lesbians. There have been
enough surveys done in my department that show there has been a
great deal of discrimination against lesbians.
It is easy to stand across the way and say that one speaks on
behalf of various minorities. One has to live in a minority to
understand what it means to be discriminated against. There are
same sex couples who, when they apply for a job, have had to hide
the fact that they are in a same sex relationship. Persons have
had to hide the fact that they were gay or lesbian because they
would not be allowed to work as teachers, or nurses, or in
various areas where they would have to come into contact with the
public.
That is discrimination. It affects where they work, which is a
fundamental human right, where they play, whom they love, how
they love and where they love.
These are the kinds of things that we are bound to achieve in
this government. We are committed to defending the human rights,
les droits de la personne. We are committed to ensuring that all
Canadians, whether they look like the majority, whether they
sound like the majority because of linguistic differences or
whether they love like the majority, will not be discriminated
against. This is very clearly what this is about. It is not
some sort of hidden agenda. It is very clear.
For anyone who wishes to look at human rights, who espouses the
dignity of the individual and the right of children and families
to grow up together regardless of the colour, race, religion and
sexual orientation of their parents, know that everyone must have
the right to bind together as a unit in society.
I have heard no one across the way asking if it was appropriate
for gays and lesbians to pay taxes or to pay into the various
premium plans we have to pay into to get the benefits that they
do not get. They have been allowed to pay. They are considered
to be equal in payment. Let us now allow them to be equal in
achieving the benefits that we all have.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-23, the Modernization of
Benefits and Obligations Act, which I fully support.
This omnibus bill, introduced on February 11, 2000, essentially
seeks, for reasons of equity, to modernize certain benefit and
obligation plans. The bill guarantees that common law partners,
whether same sex or opposite sex, will be treated equally before
the law.
As my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas mentioned, the road to full
equality for gays and lesbians has been long and often hard and
chaotic, as I am sure the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will
agree.
The proposed changes will ensure, in accordance with the May
1999 supreme court decision in M v H, that same sex common law
couples have the same benefits and obligations as opposite sex
common law couples, and the same access to social benefit
programs they have contributed to as other Canadian couples.
Co-sponsored by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance,
the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, the bill involves 20 departments and agencies.
The Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Criminal Code,
and the Old Age Security Act, among others, will be amended.
It was in 1979 that the Canadian Human Rights Commission
recommended for the first time that sexual orientation become a
prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
1735
In August 1992, the impact of the charter on the Canadian Human
Rights Act was confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig
v Canada.
The Ontario Court of Appeal maintained the lower court's
decision that the absence of sexual orientation from the list of
prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 3 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act was in violation of section 15 of the
charter.
Quebec was the first province to include sexual orientation in
the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination when it amended
its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms in 1977. I would also
like to mention the work of the national organization for equal
rights called Egale—Equality for Gays and Lesbians
Everywhere—that was very pleased with the introduction of Bill
C-23 in the House of Commons.
Kim Vance and John Fisher, both leaders of the national group
Egale, thought it was a historic day for their community. In
fact, I was guest speaker at the group's last convention and I
encouraged the members to continue their work to eliminate all
forms of discrimination against gays and lesbians.
I also want to quote an article by Murray Maltais published in
Le Droit on February 17, 2000. He wrote “This is an issue of
law, not of morals”. I might add that this is not an issue of
religion either.
In another article published in Le Devoir, on February 16, 2000,
Alain-Robert Nadeau had this to say about Bill C-23:
This is why this legislative measure by parliament, like that of
the Quebec National Assembly, seems to go against the tradition
of openness and tolerance which characterizes Canadian society.
Even in the United States, where liberalism is definitely not a
main trait of society, some presidential candidates—namely John
McCain—feel that Americans would be ready to elect a homosexual
president.
We need to remember that interracial marriages were illegal
until the United States Supreme Court brought down its decision
in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. In Canada, until the positive
intervention of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, homosexuality
constituted a criminal act. In this case, let us render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
What is more, the states of California and Hawaii also give
partial recognition to unions between persons of the same sex.
Every year, complaints are filed with human rights commissions
on the federal or provincial level concerning discrimination
toward homosexuals relating to hiring, firing and treatment in
the workplace. This and other evidence points to discrimination
against homosexuals. Sexual orientation is, unfortunately, a
rarely mentioned factor in suicide.
Studies reveal that young people, both male and female, who are
homosexual are two to three times more likely than other young
people to commit suicide. More than three-quarters of these give
as the main reason for their suicide attempt the conflicts
arising out of their sexual orientation. This is a clear
demonstration of the negative environment in which homosexuals
have to live and grow up.
In conclusion, I wish to repeat what I said in the beginning
about the committed contribution by the hon. members for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and Burnaby—Douglas to defending the gay and
lesbian minority and I call upon the hon. members of this House
to show their support to Bill C-23.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, albeit at
the very last moment given the motion of closure on the part of
the government, to participate in the discussion on Bill C-23.
1740
It is interesting that in the time I have been listening to the
debate there has been a lot of discussion about sex and marriage.
It seems to me that is not really the main essence of the bill
we have before us today. I am probably speaking on behalf of
most colleagues in the House here today when I say that we are
probably the last people in Canada who should be talking with any
kind of authority about sex and marriage.
Goodness knows, we are in Ottawa all week and our partners are
back in the riding. We get home after a crazy week and are
pursued by a 101 constituents. Some of us have kids who want to
see us. Who has time for sex?
The point of my introduction is to simply draw us back to the
purpose of the bill. It is not about sex and marriage. The bill
deals with a very fundamental question: the pursuit of full
equality for all people in our society today regardless of sexual
orientation.
Let us not be detracted by some of the comments made by the
Reform Party and some of the misgivings of the Liberal
backbenchers about what is at hand here.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in the New Democratic Party
in supporting Bill C-23. I add my congratulations to the Liberal
government for finally bringing in legislation that was long
overdue and will meet our obligations as a country.
I pay a special tribute to the member for Burnaby—Douglas who
has probably done more than anyone in the history of the country
to pursue the goal of full equality for gay and lesbian people
and to ensure that the values of Canadians around full equality,
justice and fairness were fully enshrined in the laws of this
land. There are many people to whom I could pay tribute, but I
wanted to single out the unswerving and dedicated work of the
member for Burnaby—Douglas.
The bill is about equality, justice and fairness. It is about
meeting our obligations. It is a long overdue measure to make
operational the principle of equality for all people regardless
of sexual orientation as articulated in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, in numerous
provincial statutes, in various court decisions and particularly
by the Supreme Court of Canada in the spring of 1999, the highest
court in the land, which ruled on this very issue.
As we said earlier today, this is a housekeeping bill. It brings
us up to date with the laws of the land. It puts into practice
the values of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The
legislation represents a basic democratic right of Canadians. It
prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It
takes us a step closer to the goal of full equality for all gay
and lesbian people.
In reference to some of the comments I heard today from Reform
members, the bill captures the true meaning of family, not as
some artificial construct based on some idyllic view of the past
that never was, based on some norms of a previous society, based
on various interpretations in the Bible or based on cultural
conditioning that has permeated every aspect of our society
today, but a definition of family that keeps pace with society,
that captures the very fundamental issues that we are dealing
with: loving relationships, safe and nurturing environments and a
commitment to ensure the well-being of all members of the family
unit.
I was taken aback by the comments of the Reform Party today.
Many times when we have had these debates the Reform members have
shown their feelings on this issue in a rather veiled attempt,
focusing on the intricacies of a bill rather than exposing their
feelings on sexual orientation. What we have heard today from
the Reform Party and some Liberal backbenchers is just how far we
must go as a society in recognizing equality of all people
regardless of sexual orientation.
1745
I could not help but go back to some of the writings of the
Vanier Institute of the Family. It has written so many articles
and has spoken so well about the family. I want to put on record
a quotation from an article by Suanne Kelman from the winter 1999
edition of Transition. She said, “I think what we can
learn from the past is that we should ignore the hysteria many
critics bring to the discussion of family life today. We are not
going to find perfect answers for every family but that fact
should not stop us from grappling with the realities facing us.
If we can recognize the impossibility of returning to a past we
never had, we can get going, cheerfully, intelligently and
compassionately on improving the future”.
That is what we are doing today. We are clearly moving forward
intelligently and compassionately on a notion of family that is
rooted in the fundamentals of companionship and friendship, love
and nurturing, caring and concern. That is the essence of this
bill. That is why it is important we move forward and recognize
the need to ensure that those values are enshrined in every law
of the land.
Today it is clear to me more than ever that there are those who
fundamentally oppose the notion of recognizing people who are
homosexual. I appreciate there are differences that we still
have to address. I hope that the Reform Party does not try to
take us back to an age when people are not recognized for their
individual talents and contributions which they can make to our
society today.
The debate we are having today in many ways reminds me of the
debate we had in the spring of 1998. The Reform Party brought in
its motion pertaining to the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario
court and presented us with what we all considered to be a most
regrettable situation. It was clearly seen to be a thinly veiled
attempt to promote and endorse discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation. That is being repeated today and I am very
worried about it.
I would hope that on entering this millennium we would be
looking at some very fundamental values that have to be upheld
and supported in every law over which we have authority and every
practice and program that we are responsible for. I hope we can
move forward with a clear understanding of what this bill is all
about and why it is so important for the fabric of Canadian
society.
I will conclude my remarks by quoting from an article written by
Helen Fallding which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on
February 16. In her article, “A Valentine for the Minister”,
Helen congratulated the government for bringing forward this
legislation and recognizing the reality in terms of this
legislation.
I will not quote the article directly because that would mean
mentioning the minister's name. Helen said that if the Minister
of Justice “manages to sneak the new bill passed Liberal
backbenchers and Reform Party opponents, Lisa”—her
partner—“and I will receive the same treatment from federal
government departments as common law couples”. She went on to
say, “Each year when I make my RRSP contribution, I pray that
the federal government will stop its discriminatory practices
before one of us dies. If I died tomorrow, Lisa would have to
pay taxes on my RRSP savings, instead of having them roll over
into her account as they do for heterosexual widows”. She
concluded by saying that this “is not really about money for me.
It is about finally getting to feel like a Canadian citizen. It
is about having my country acknowledge the mutual support and
commitment partners like Lisa and I offer each other. Ultimately
it is about love”.
I hope we will all support this bill and get on with the
important work ahead of us.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to stand in the House to support the
government initiative. It is the right initiative and has been
introduced at the right time. We should not have had to wait
until the supreme court told us to do what we have done but the
mere fact that we have done it is to be commended. This showed
leadership on the part of the government and on the part of the
minister in moving forward with this issue.
1750
Some of my colleagues wonder about the pros and cons of this
bill. The bottom line is that we are not the first ones to come
out of the gate. A number of provinces have already introduced
legislation to extend benefits to same sex partners or opposite
sex partners who live in common law relationships. In excess of
200 private sector companies already have measures, laws or
directives on their books that extend benefits to those who live
in common law relationships or same sex relationships.
I have received a number of letters from those who are for and
those who are opposed. Concerning those who are opposed, there
is much misinformation coming out. One of the key concerns those
opposed seem to have is that this legislation will destroy the
institution of marriage between a man and a woman. In fairness,
this bill does not do that at all. The institution remains as it
stands now, which is a relationship or a contract between a man
and a woman.
This legislation merely moves forward what has been a fact for a
long time in our society. It also sets the beginning of a long
process for the government and for society to address many of the
issues that have been on people's minds for a very long time.
I like the commitment the government has shown in addressing the
whole notion of what a dependant is. This is to be commended
because the issue deserves further study. For example, should a
woman or a man identify his or her mother or father as a
dependant if the two live in the same environment? For a father
and a son, or a father and a daughter who live under the same
roof, should the law recognize and provide benefits the same as
this legislation does? On the surface, I would say of course. A
single person who supports a family member whether it is a
brother, sister, mother or child, should be allowed to designate
that person as a dependant and therefore benefits should be given
to that person.
When we talk about extending benefits, extending rights, we also
have to talk about extending obligations. In legislation every
time we extend or advance one issue, there are all of the good
things that go with it in terms of benefits, but other things go
along with it as well which are the obligations. That is exactly
what this bill does. It provides people who live in common law
relationships or in same sex relationships similar benefits and
obligations as those provided to others who live in the same sort
of circumstances.
It is unequivocally clear that Canadians wanted the government
to act on this issue. A 1998 poll by Angus Reid showed that the
majority of Canadians, more than two to one, in every region of
Canada favoured legislation that introduced benefits to those who
live in common law or same sex relationships.
1755
The court itself has told us as a society and as a government
that it is time to put in law what has been a fact of life for
many years. It already has been implemented by many people in
the private sector, as well as some provincial governments.
Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario have changed their
legislation or they are in the process of reviewing their laws to
extend those benefits. We are not alone. We are moving
collectively with other governments to ensure that we put into
law what should have been put in place quite some time ago.
There are those who are concerned about adoption by people in
same sex relationships and also the whole issue of immigration
and so on. The legislation does not change anything. Canadian
law will remain the same on those issues.
Government must take a leadership role. Sometimes it has to
take leadership on tough issues. In this situation not only is
the government doing what is right, but it is doing what the
people want it to do and what the courts have told the government
to do.
This should be a non-partisan issue. Members on both sides of
the House should be applauding. The Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms provides every citizen with equal rights and a
chance to access justice.
We recommend that our colleagues on the other side of the House
applaud the government and move on with the legislation. At the
same time our government has already made a commitment to study
further the issue of extending benefits to people who have
dependants who rely on them, whether it is a mother, a brother, a
sister, a father and so on.
I have a personal interest in the bill and I would like to see
it pass quickly. I have a daughter and I am not married. My
daughter is dependent on me. I am very interested in the
Government of Canada studying this situation further. Possibly it
will be feasible and acceptable at some point in time to address
the whole notion of allowing an individual to declare another
individual as a dependant should that be the case. To say that I
have to block any movement by the government until such a time as
this whole issue is addressed would be foolish and not
responsible.
We have to take what we already have as a consensus in society,
implement it and entrench it in law. The next phase would be to
study the other issues of dependency. People like myself, many
of my colleagues and others in society would have a chance to
make their case before the government, a committee of the House
of Commons or their members of parliament. Surely if the
economic situation in Canada continues to improve further, we
would come to a point where we would not even need to discuss
those issues. It would be irrelevant because we would be able to
afford to do what everyone wanted us to do.
To that extent, I support the bill. I hope my colleagues on both
sides of the House will support it.
1800
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits
and obligations act. I support this piece of legislation and I
am happy that as a member of parliament I have the opportunity to
outline my reasons, although it is just under the wire with
closure.
The bill is not attempting to change anyone's beliefs. It is
not trying to impose a moral structure on society. This piece of
legislation is striving to address a financial inequality in
Canada. Federal benefits and obligations for same sex couples
will be on equal footing with those of heterosexual common law
couples. As the courts have ruled, they should be.
The courts have said that it is unconstitutional for same sex
couples to be treated differently than heterosexual ones when it
comes to benefits and obligations. Since 1995 sexual orientation
has fallen under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. The bill has that very much in mind and will ensure
justice and fairness for same sex couples.
Marriage will not change after the bill is given royal assent.
Marriage has traditionally been the union of one man and one
woman. That remains unchanged in the bill. Further, the bill is
non-religious and does not attempt to change or alter anyone's
beliefs.
I do not have a problem with the bill per se, but I do have
reservations, several for that matter. My reservations have to
do with the timing of the legislation. The fact that it was
tabled on February 11 was no accident. The timing is part of an
orchestrated plan of the Liberals. Allow me to explain.
The Prime Minister and other members of cabinet stand in the
House on a regular basis and vent about how strong the economy
is. The unemployment rate is at its lowest rate in years, they
say. The deficit is eliminated, so we are told. Interest rates
are low. Inflation is a thing of the past. Parts of the economy
are thriving, not because of Liberal policies but due to policies
of the previous government.
In any case, not all is well in our glorious land. Health care
is sorely underfunded. Our refugee and immigration systems are
broken and in need of repair. We hear daily about the problems
at HRDC. Any government would want the public to forget about a
billion dollar boondoggle.
The Prime Minister was first elected to the House in 1963. He
was present in the House when gay rights were debated and he
knows full well the ire, emotion and controversy that such a
discussion entails among Canadians. He was present in the House,
for example, in 1969 when homosexual acts between consenting
adults were decriminalized.
The legislation is introduced at this time not because of a
genuine desire for fairness and equality by the Liberals, not
because of a desire to uphold a supreme court ruling, but rather
to deflect public scrutiny from other governmental issues. What
better way to do that than to introduce legislation guaranteeing
rights for gays and lesbians?
We live in a liberal democracy where the rights of everyone are
respected and upheld. That is the purpose of the bill, but it is
shameful that the government is introducing it now when there are
other pressing issues like HRDC, health care, education,
immigration and national defence. It is sad that the government
uses such an important issue as equality to deflect attention
from government controversies. It is also sad that the
government again uses time allocation to stifle debate.
Many hon. members have talked about marriage and spouse. The
bill has no reference to marriage or spouse. It is a technical
bill dealing with economic and legal rights. I agree with other
hon. members that the bill should have been clearer about the
definitions of marriage and spouse, the union between a man and a
woman to the exclusion of all others.
Another issue that is not dealt with is economic dependency. We
are missing the boat. We all know family members or friends who
have to live together to survive. Why were these items not dealt
with? What was the rush?
1805
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-23. I agree
with my hon. Tory colleague who just spoke when he asked what was
the rush. We have missed an opportunity to do a couple of things
the government neglected to do.
First and foremost, on June 8, 1999, parliament passed a motion
that we should affirm the definition of marriage in legislation.
There is not a more perfect opportunity to do that than right
now. Whether in this bill or in another, this is when it should
have been done.
I have heard members of the NDP, including the member for
Winnipeg North Centre, mention the Reform Party. It was almost
every 10th word in her speech. I state on the record right now
that my colleagues and I are not opposed to making sure that
people are treated equally and fairly, including people of
co-dependence, heterosexual and homosexual. That is what we want
to try to do. They should be getting benefits but the bill does
not do that.
The bill is based on sexuality. All the way through it, it says
that relationships must be conjugal. How is that defined? What
does it mean? One of the two biggest issues with the bill is the
definition of marriage. Parliament sent a very clear signal, as
did Canadians, that marriage needs to be defined in legislation.
The federal government has been remiss. That has been completely
overlooked. The bill is being rammed through for a whole host of
reasons. People try to paint us as being against equality, that
we do not support it. That is absolute nonsense.
The member for Edmonton Southwest put forward a very good
solution in registered domestic partnerships. It may need
fine-tuning but I applaud him for it. Not everyone in my caucus
would completely agree with him but he had a lot of support. He
put forward a solution wherein we could define marriage and
benefits could have been paid out but not on the basis of sex as
the bill does. Let us not make any mistake or have any illusions
about what it is.
The member for Miramichi said on June 2, the the days leading up
to the definition of marriage, that anything based upon sex was
the poorest way to define a relationship whether it be the same
sex or the other sex. I could not agree more. That is my
frustration. Some people are trying to suggest that we do not
want to see equality. That is not true at all.
There are many things the government should have done but it did
not. It missed the most fundamental task that parliament
directed it to do. That is what frustrates me. I absolutely
believe in no uncertain terms that marriage is between a man and
a woman. It is not between two men as some people would like to
suggest and have argued for. Marriage is between a man and a
woman, and that is all it can be. A very clear signal could have
been sent by defining that in legislation, but the government did
not do it.
I am not so sure I have confidence in the government when it
obviously leaves something out that was so easy to include. What
is its underlining motive? I ask that after being a member of
parliament since 1997 and watching what goes on in the House.
There are many more important issues that need to be dealt with
right now. We have seen what is going on in HRDC, which is
absolutely scandalous and is throughout many other departments.
What does that have to do with this legislation? It is very
important. It deals with the money of all taxpayers. I have not
seen one word of legislation to deal with the problem that arose
last fall.
1810
There are problems in justice and in immigration. We saw the
problem with migrants. We are hurting genuine immigrants who are
applying to come here through proper channels and refugees who
have a legitimate claim to come to here like people from Kosovo,
East Timor and such places who are absolutely blocked. Have we
seen any legislation to deal with those problems? We are on the
eve of another season of migrants coming in and there is not one
word in legislation. The Minister of Justice tabled Bill C-23
when there are many other pressing issues for Canadians.
We have backlogs in the courts. Things could be done to speed
up the process and ensure that people are getting justice. We
could ensure that victims are getting due process in relation to
criminal charges and that they are protected.
There is the area of sexual predators abusing young children.
Once they are released into society it is paramount that we make
sure that our children are safe. Have we seen legislation
brought forward? I think there has been a little in that area,
but have we seen it passed? No. So much could have been done,
but government for whatever reason has introduced a bill that was
not done very well at all. That is why I will vote against it.
We have missed an opportunity. The bill will be open to
challenges because it was not done well.
Other solutions could have been put forward, but the government
has missed an opportunity to define marriage although it was
directed to do so by the Parliament of Canada. I appreciate that
it was an opposition supply day motion but it was passed by
parliament. Does it take parliament seriously or not? Or, is it
just shuffled under the rug? That is why I have to question its
sincerity about the bill and its underlying motive. Why did it
do that? Why would we trust anything it wants us to do?
Government members stand and say it is about equality, but many
other relationships are not included.
My concern is the record of the government. I would be the
first to stand and vote in favour of a bill that gives benefits
to all Canadians without discrimination. There are other
relationships that may not be conjugal, that may not involve sex.
Why should they not be entitled to the same benefits?
A member talked about RRSP contributions and about what happens
if one dies. I know two friends who are not in a sexual
relationship. Should they not be able to have these same
benefits? Of course they should. Why should they not? I
personally know people who have been in relationships for 20 or
30 years where there is absolutely no conjugal or sexual
relationship but they are very much dependent on it.
I know of another example of a priest in Chilliwack who resides
with another person. They share a car. They are very dependent
on each other and have been for years and years, but they are not
in any conjugal relationship. They would not qualify under the
bill. That is discriminating against them.
In summary, the government has missed a real opportunity to
define marriage as instructed by parliament. It has failed in
that regard. That is where I have to question what are its real
motives. I believe in equality for all Canadians. I would be the
first to stand here and say it. Again I commend the member for
Edmonton Southwest for putting forward a positive solution which
government ignored. That solution would have been far better
than Bill C-23. I will have to vote against the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 6.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
Call in the members.
1845
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
| Crête
|
Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Limoges
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Ménard
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sgro
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
| Wood
– 160
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Asselin
| Bailey
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bonin
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Calder
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Epp
| Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hart
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
|
Iftody
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Karygiannis
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lincoln
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Schmidt
| Solberg
| Steckle
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Ur
|
Venne
| Wappel
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert – 61
|
PAIRED
Members
[English]
Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be
recorded as being in favour of Bill C-23.
The Deputy Speaker: Was the hon. member present when the
vote was taken? She has made her point. We will leave it at
that.
[Translation]
I therefore declare the motion adopted.
Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human
Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-20
The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion
and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order adopted February 17, 2000,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
division on the amendment pertaining to business of supply.
The question is on the amendment.
1855
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 91
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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:
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(North Vancouver) – 91
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sgro
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 134
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1905
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
ELECTIONS CANADA
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on
October 25 I was on my feet in this place to question the
government House leader on the joint UN and Elections Canada vote
that was to be held in schools across Canada. The initiative
which was held on November 19 required all school age students to
select a right as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child which they felt was most important.
My question for the government House leader and eventually to
the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was why, given the
controversial nature of the UN convention, were Canadians being
kept in the dark with respect to this undertaking? More
important, why were school administrators, trustees, teachers and
parents being kept in the dark?
In a subsequent letter to the editor which I forwarded to my
riding media, I explained that the rights as listed on the
proposed in school ballot were taken directly from the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important to mention
that this convention was passed in 1989 by cabinet only. Indeed
the document that has inspired this exercise in democracy, as Mr.
Kingsley called it, has never been subjected to the scrutiny of
the Canadian adult democracy.
Opponents of the convention have long claimed that the wording
of the document is anti-family. I have also come to believe that
this is one of the reasons the Canadian parliament has yet to
debate the matter and why the United States has failed to ratify
the convention to this day.
Before I continue I want to be perfectly clear that I am neither
supporting nor condemning the convention. However, I have very
grave concerns with some of the potential problems that have been
brought forward by the many people who have signed petitions
opposing this document. I understand that over 13,000 Canadians
have signed petitions since 1997 opposing this convention. I also
feel that given the fact that the said petitioners claim that the
convention has implications with respect to family life and
parental rights and responsibilities, parliamentarians should
have the opportunity to debate the issue more fully.
Each and every day we pass laws and regulations that are
supposed to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. In
fact earlier this evening we gave Bill C-23 its second reading.
It is no secret that this bill which amends over 60 pieces of
legislation to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples is
highly controversial. It is also no secret that I am not
supportive of this legislation.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am not
supporting this legislation due to the fact that it recognizes
financial dependency only in cases where there is conjugality.
Yes, as silly as it seems, apparently Mr. Trudeau was wrong and
the state does indeed belong in the bedrooms of the nation.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I represent one of the best ridings
in all of Canada. Moreover, Huron—Bruce is primarily rural in
nature. This fact often creates a situation where extended
families are financially required to band together so as to
maintain functionality. I can name numerous dependency
relationships such as those involving two siblings or even a
child and an elderly parent.
I would ask why are these relationships less deserving of
benefits or less financially or emotionally dependent on one
another than a same sex couple, those who are engaged in
relationships based upon conjugality? The short answer is that
they are not less deserving.
As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined in
accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that
society cannot discriminate.
With this in mind, I would respectfully suggest that if we fail
to recognize all dependency relationships, we are simply
exchanging one form of discrimination for another.
1910
In conclusion, I do not want to be seen as someone who is simply
opposing this legislation because it would extend benefits to
same sex couples. While it is true that I am a staunch supporter
of traditional family values and its systems, I am also not a
person who is prepared to promote hate or prejudice. I am
promoting an inclusionist policy. Let us heed Mr. Trudeau's
famous words and draw the shades if we are going—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid the hon.
member's time has expired.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the issue
raised by the member for Huron—Bruce in his original question
raised in the House.
The hon. member had asked why Elections Canada was involved in
hosting a vote in schools across the country. I believe he was
referring to what was known as the national election for the
rights of youth. Elections Canada and UNICEF Canada had invited
all students under the age of 18 to select which one of the
several rights enumerated in the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child they felt was most important. These rights include the
right to an education; the right to food and shelter; the right
to a safe environment and a healthy life; and the right to be
treated without discrimination.
The Canada Elections Act gives the chief electoral officer a
mandate to implement public education and information programs to
make the electoral process better known to the public. Over the
years Elections Canada has undertaken numerous initiatives, many
of them involving youth, on the importance of voting and other
means of participating in our democratic system. Examples are
the Forum for Young Canadians, CRB Foundation, regional heritage
fairs and Salon Pepsi Jeunesse.
In carrying out such initiatives with Canada's youth, Elections
Canada is not indifferent to the fact that the 18 to 24 year old
age group registers the lowest rate of participation in the
electoral process.
Elections Canada has also developed educational programs to
assist schools in explaining how the Canadian electoral system
works. Participation of schools in these educational programs,
such as the national election for the rights of youth, is always
on a voluntary basis. The decision to undertake—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid there is
no more time.
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise tonight
and put forward some views and ideas regarding the farm aid
package announced last year by the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
With my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the southwestern
Ontario region producing a large percentage of agri-food
products, the success of agriculture is of prime importance. If
we lose our farm families and our means of production, we lose
our sovereignty as a nation.
Having met with the federations of agriculture in my riding, the
pork producers, dairy, corn, soybean, wheat and vegetable growers
to name just a few, all have offered ideas on possible
improvements to AIDA within the whole array of federal-provincial
safety nets and national agricultural policies. All of the
producer groups in my riding believe that changes could be made
to improve safety nets and help producers of all agricultural
commodities in times of financial hardship.
It has been suggested by the Middlesex county pork producers for
one that for NISA, the matchable deposit percentage of eligible
net sales should be raised from 3% to 6%, allowing producers to
build a cushion to fall back on when eligible net sales drop.
In addition, they feel that producer accounts should be allowed
to go into a negative balance when eligible net sales drop below
75% of the previous three year average, to a maximum of 10% of
the previous three year average of eligible net sales in any
given year, with a total allowable negative balance of 25% in all
years combined.
To offset prolonged financial problems, combined with the
deposit caps now in place, the NISA program would help producers
most in need of financial assistance, namely young producers just
getting started in farming and producers of commodities prone to
cyclical price swings beyond their control.
Corn producers have constructive suggestions too. The market
revenue program now extended for two more years needs to be
confirmed for a longer period. They are calling for 90% coverage
and elimination of premium deductions in market revenue. This
would recognize the continuous pressure put on cash crop
producers by the U.S. farm programs.
1915
We must cause positive changes to the AIDA program. It
definitely has some kinks in it and collectively we must make it
work to establish a more effective farm aid approach.
With the suggestions of producer groups, such as those in my
riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, with the provinces and the
federal officials, and through the national safety net advisory
committee of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I am
hopeful that new proposals will be assessed on their own merits.
We must stand for our farmers. We must support our farmers and
rural Canada, the backbone of our economy. I look forward to
working with the minister and local producers in my riding to
develop better methods to deliver assistance more quickly and
efficiently to the farmers most in need.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the changes
which the government has introduced to the AIDA program will
benefit many producers across the country. We will now be
covering negative margins. Negative margins occur when a farm
has a particularly bad year and the operation has insufficient
revenues to cover variable costs like fuel, machinery repair and
chemicals.
What will also help farmers get through these tough times is
that they now have the option to make a choice in 1999 of a
reference period on which the payment calculation for AIDA is
based. They will be able to choose either the previous three
years or three of the previous five years where high and low
income years are not counted. This is called the Olympic
average. This will be a real help to farmers as they will not
need to count a low income year that they may have had due to
flooding, drought or some other occurrence beyond their control.
Furthermore, in response to industry requests, on January 13 the
Government of Canada made a new commitment of up to $1 billion
for the next two years to design a new disaster program to assist
those producers most in need and to help them get through the
tough times the hon. member referred to.
The government continues to improve AIDA in response to input
from farmers and members of parliament, such as the hon. member
for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): 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 7.17 p.m.)