38th PARLIAMENT,
1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 123
CONTENTS
Monday, June 27, 2005
|
 |
Private Members' Business
|
|
|
Age of Consent |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Motions in Amendment |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
(Amendment agreed to)
|
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Habitat for Humanity |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
Rail Transportation |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Parliamentary Interns |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Maison Aube-Lumière |
|
|
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ) |
|
|
High School Graduation Ceremonies |
|
|
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.) |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC) |
|
|
Graduation Ceremonies |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
|
House of Commons Pages |
|
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
|
Pride Week |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC) |
|
|
Government Accomplishments |
|
|
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.) |
|
|
Make Poverty History Campaign |
|
|
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC) |
|
|
New Chief of Kanesatake |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ) |
|
|
Multiculturalism Day |
|
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
|
Sound and Light Show |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
Mondial des Cultures |
|
|
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) |
|
|
Satellite Radio |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Air-India |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Transfer Payments |
|
|
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
The Budget |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Ethics |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Technology Partnerships Canada |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.) |
|
|
Immigration |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Resources and Skills Development |
|
|
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada-U.S. Relations |
|
|
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Foreign Affairs |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Nuclear Reactors |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) |
|
|
Vietnam |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Status of Women |
|
|
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Justice |
|
|
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Telecommunications |
|
|
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
International Aid |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.) |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Certificates of Nomination |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
|
Income Tax Act |
|
|
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Breast Implant Registry Act |
|
|
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Marijuana |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Human Rights |
|
|
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC) |
|
|
Natural Health Products |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Autism |
|
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC) |
|
|
Sudan |
|
|
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Defoliant Use at CFB Gagetown |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Moore |
|
|
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Wappel |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Ind.) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Wappel |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Tom Wappel |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Jean |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Routine Proceedings
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Official Languages |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
National Defence and Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Foreign Affairs and International Trade |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Fisheries and Oceans |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Agriculture and Agri-Food |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Finance |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to)
|
|
|
Government Orders
|
|
|
Civil Marriage Act |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy |
|
|
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Joy Smith |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Dan McTeague |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Gurbax Malhi |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. David Anderson |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Myron Thompson |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Ind.) |
|
|
Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Pat O'Brien |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
|
Hon. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Andrew Scheer |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Mark Warawa |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Motion d'attribution de temps |
|
|
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Minister for Internal Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
Mr. Randy White |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx) |
|
|
(Division 147) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Ed Komarnicki |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Anderson (Victoria, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Keith Martin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. Larry Bagnell |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Gary Goodyear |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Motion No. 3 negatived)
|
|
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) |
|
|
Hon. David Kilgour (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, Ind.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 148) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Rob Nicholson |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. John McKay |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Mr. Rodger Cuzner |
|
|
Mr. Andy Savoy |
|
|
Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia |
|
|
Mr. Scott Simms |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
|
|
(Division 149) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo |
|
|
Mr. Massimo Pacetti |
|
|
Hon. Judi Longfield |
|
|
Hon. Raymond Simard |
|
|
Hon. Walt Lastewka |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney |
|
|
Mr. Raymond Bonin |
|
|
Mr. Alan Tonks |
|
|
Mr. Ken Boshcoff |
|
|
Hon. Bryon Wilfert |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
|
Mr. Roger Gaudet |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin |
|
|
Ms. Louise Thibault |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bouchard |
|
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
|
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
|
|
(Division 150) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. James Moore |
|
|
(Division 151) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 152) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 153) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Irwin Cotler |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Karen Redman |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
(Division 154) |
|
|
The Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, June 27, 2005
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1100)
[English]
Age of Consent
The House resumed from May 19 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the last 45 minutes of debate on Motion No. 221. The motion reads:
|
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to change the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age. |
I am a big fan of private members' initiatives. Over the last 12 years I have had a number them and I have often thought that the best outcome of a private member's initiative is not for it to proceed through all stages, even though this is a motion and this would be its final stage, but it is to have the government adopt the intent of the proposal by a private member to ensure that the rights and interests of all are being protected.
It would be easy to argue that Motion No. 221 does not in fact help that process. It would suggest, for instance, that a 15 year old and a 17 year old engaging in sexual activity would be a problem but the problem here is the definition of sexual activity. Kissing, in fact, would constitute sexual activity.
The rationale of the motion presumes any sexual activity, which is the problem, but the intent is well-founded.
I have spoken many times in this place about children and about child pornography particularly. I do not think there is any disagreement in this place that the existence of child pornography means that a child must have been abused. The problem with private members' initiatives is that the only way for a private member's initiative to be successful is for it to be somewhat simpler in linear terms rather than trying to get a comprehensive solution to something.
Let us take for instance, Bill C-2. Currently the age of consent to sexual activity is 18 years of age where the relationship is exploitive. This is the difference between Motion No. 221 and Bill C-2. That exploitive activity involves prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. Where none of these exploitive circumstances exist, the age of consent is currently 14. What the member seeks to do is to increase that from 14 to 16.
However the key here is that any non-consensual sexual activity, regardless of age, is an assault.
Under Bill C-2 the courts would be directed to look at some broader characteristics. I know the committee will be reporting that bill back soon. I am sure the member's motion, Motion No. 221, and the debate that it has brought to this place, will add further to the passing of Bill C-2, which I know members in this place will want to do.
With regard to the issue of an exploitive relationship, Bill C-2 directs the court to consider broader indicators, which, unfortunately, have not been specifically put in Motion No. 221 but I am sure have been included in some of the debate already. They include the age of the young person, any difference between the age of the young person and the other person, the evolution of that relationship and the degree of control or influence asserted over that young person. We can see that there are some other elements other than simply age.
As we look at the debate that we have had in the past, I do not think there is much question in this place that there is a serious concern about the linkage between sexual activity at a younger age and the exploitive sexual activity that Bill C-2 tries to address.
In this particular case, the bill provides a clear direction to the courts to infer that a relationship is exploitive of the young person after examining the nature and circumstances of the relationship and the youth himself or herself.
(1105)
Motion No. 221 is an important motion brought forward by the member because it gives us the opportunity to raise the serious concerns that we have with regard to the exploitation of children. Although this may also relate to sexual activity, which is not of the character that we talked about during the debates on Bill C-2 and with regard to child pornography, it does represent a proxy to do the logical extension and to look at the linkages between the earlier sexual activity, however defined, and the risk of young people becoming involved in some of the exploitive activity, which is what this House has dealt with to a greater extent.
Bill C-2 intends to better protect our youth. I believe the member is thinking of our youth in bringing this matter forward. I want to remind the House that motions come before the House in the context that the government consider the advisability of taking some course of action. It means that no matter what else we do, the debate that takes place with regard to Motion No. 221 should provide greater input as we deal with other activities.
However, because Bill C-2 is at a point where it will to be coming back from committee and there will be an opportunity to debate it, the member will find that much of the discussion that is taking place here will also be reflected in the discussion on Bill C-2.
I thank the member for participating in private members' business. It is an important tool that members of Parliament have to express their concerns about some of the social and moral issues of the day. There is no simple solution for a complex problem but if there is, probably it is wrong. In this context, it would be unwise and maybe imprudent to suggest that the member's motion is not comprehensive enough. In fact, private members' bills and motions often are very pointed in terms of areas to try to advance larger issues.
I thank the member for raising the issue and I hope, as a consequence of her contribution, the debate on defining sexual activity and, even greater, the exploitation of our children due to sexual activity, will be advanced as a consequence of her efforts.
(1110)
Mr. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to pass on my thanks to the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing the motion forward. It is a timely motion, given the government's failure to adequately address this most serious problem. Many advocacy groups across the country, certainly in my riding, have been asking the government to take serious measures on the issue. As usual, we have seen a dithering government and justice department fail to actually do anything concrete.
The hon. member for Mississauga South talked about the government's own bill, Bill C-2. Bill C-2 fails in many respects. Most notably, it fails to protect a vulnerable category of children, those aged 14 to 16, from the grasp of sexual predators. Children at these ages can easily become the target of people on the Internet and of neighbourhood offenders who seek out vulnerable children to do them harm. Every day parents are horrified to learn that Canadian law fails to provide them with a legal recourse.
In most democracies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and most American states, adults are prohibited from having sexual relationships with children less than 16 and sometimes even 17 years of age. In Canada, a child may legally consent to sex with an adult at age 14.
The member for Mississauga South talked about how the current legislation deals with exploitative measures such as prostitution, pornography and other things. I would suggest to that member that this definition of exploitation is too narrow. We all know that children at 14 and 15 years of age are susceptible to types of exploitation that are not listed in the bill.
We can image a 35 or 45 year old adult who preys on young persons, manipulating their minds and certain circumstances. We can think of many examples where young women in poor households in poor neighbourhoods are being groomed, a term used among child care workers, where adults buy gifts for children, take them to the movies and show them a side of life that maybe they do not see in their neighbourhoods in an attempt to lure them back to their homes to do them evil.
Under the current definition for legal consent for sexual relationships, a young boy or girl of perhaps 14 or 15 years of age can legally give that consent. In other words, the adult would be off the hook. However, is that young person really giving consent or is he or she just falling victim to the circumstances that the adult predator is basically manipulating?
Many child advocacy groups, provincial attorneys general, premiers, the RCMP and countless other organizations are calling on the government to immediately raise the age of consent. In fact, the former attorney general for the province of British Columbia and the current member for Vancouver South got together with the justice ministers from the other provinces and territories, and unanimously agreed that the age of consent should be raised to 16. Now that this hon. member is a federal politician and serves the Crown, his resolve on this issue appears to have waned.
The Liberals' reasoning for not raising the age of sexual consent is the worry that changing the law may criminalize sexual activity between young people, but that is a red herring. It is another excuse for not addressing fundamental problems in society. There are many other jurisdictions that have close in age provisions where young teenagers who are sexually active, classmates who have sex, for example, would not be subject to the same criminal prosecution.
Some hon. members opposite do not think this is a serious debate and would rather discuss perhaps corporate advertising. On April 23, 2002, the Canadian Alliance put forward a motion calling on the government to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16. Members of the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against and ultimately defeated the motion. The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona said in the House:
|
When the day comes that we have that kind of debate in here and we go after the corporations for the way in which they are constantly, every day, in every house, on every TV set exploiting sexuality, then we will have a real debate on our hands. |
This is a real debate. This is not something we should ignore and talk about something else straight away. This is an important issue for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and for thousands of parents and families who want their children to have protection.
(1115)
The security and safety of our children is a serious debate. All Canadian children should be protected from sexual exploitation by an adult before they are even old enough to drive a car. However, it would appear that this is not the case according to the Liberal-NDP coalition.
Canada's Criminal Code already permits children younger than 14 year of age to consent to sexual acts as long as their partners are less than two years older than they are. This close in age provision is already in the Criminal Code.
Rather than a straightforward, effective position on raising the age of consent to 16 years of age, Bill C-2 would create a situation where a judge would be obliged to consider a complicated test in evaluating the sexual relationship between a child as young as 14. This test would involve the consideration of criteria including the age difference between the accused and the young person, the evolution of the relationship, and the degree of control or influence the adult had over the young person.
Neither the existing Canadian law nor the proposals in Bill C-2 effectively address the sexual exploitation of children under the age of 16 by adults. Only by raising the age of consent can the law truly protect children.
I applaud groups such as Beyond Borders and Child Find that are bringing concerns such as these into the public domain. They have been fighting for the rights of children across Canada and should be commended for their fight on this issue. They realize that childhood is too precious to be taken away. It is my hope that with the help of advocacy groups across Canada and with the will of the House the age of consent will be raised.
Concerned parents have come into my office and talked about situations they have heard about either firsthand or secondhand involving young teenagers 14 and 15 years old who have been taken advantage of by an adult. I have to explain to them that under Canada's existing laws the justice system is incapable of addressing that problem. Sexual predators, 45, 50 or 60 years old, are within their legal rights to engage in sexual activity with a 14 or 15 year old. Many examples of adult exploitation of young children have already been mentioned.
The Liberal definition of sexual exploitation is too narrow. I would contend that a 14 or 15 year old child cannot legally give consent in many circumstances because of the different ways adults can entice them to engage in this activity. For instance, adults can groom young people, entice them, and spend a lot of time luring them away from their families and into their homes. A lot of documentation has been provided which shows people use the Internet to prowl and find young children who are susceptible to this.
I have spoken with police officers in my riding who have told me that they do not have the tools to fight this sort of thing. That has always been a problem with the Liberal government. It does not give our police officers the tools they need to make our neighbourhoods safe, to protect our young children from a serious blight in our society, adults who prey on young and vulnerable children.
I would like to thank my colleague for putting the motion forward. It is something that this party has been advocating for a long time because we listen to families. We listen to parents who are concerned about the safety of their children. We listen to police organizations that fight the front line fights, who go through the justice system and find flaws in our legislation. They talk to us and we listen to them. We listen to the advocacy groups that are concerned about the quality of life in our neighbourhoods and the safety of our children.
We listen to all those groups, but the Liberals do not. I do not know who they are listening to. I do not know who is setting the policy directives in the justice department who would argue against protecting 14 and 15 year old children from this class of predator. Anyone who preys on young children is the lowest form of criminal.
I do not know who the Liberals are listening to, but the Conservative Party is listening to ordinary Canadians, to families and police organizations. We will continue to listen to them. We will continue to propose legislation that will make our neighbourhoods safer.
(1120)
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on behalf of my party to oppose this motion. As usual, from the lack of knowledge that comes from the Conservative side of the House, I am not doing this on the basis of what the Conservatives think.
They should be aware, and obviously most of them sitting over there are not, that the amendments that were moved by their justice critic in committee were supported by myself, as a representative of my party, to change the age of consent but at the same time to build in protection. As opposed to again what the Conservatives normally do, I thought it would be best if we dealt with the facts of the situation we are confronted with in this country which is the need to have a defence in the legislation that would not criminalize a large percentage of our youth population who are engaging in sexual activity with other youth of roughly the same age.
I heard from the last speaker, who obviously is not being briefed by his own justice critic, about the present age of consent and the defence of a person being within two years of that age. That was not the amendment and that was the reason we opted to support the Conservative amendments.
The Conservative amendment would have a gap of five years. I believe the justice critic for the Conservative Party moved the amendment to five years as opposed to two, which seems to be satisfying the mover of this motion. If we were to look at the statistics of sexual activity among youth in this country, one would be criminalizing approximately 42% or 43% of male youth who are engaging in sexual activity if we went with the two year gap. In fact, there is that much of a difference.
There is always the stereotype that it is the male who is older. In fact, in 33% of the cases the female is older and in 43% of the cases it is the male. We had a potential for criminalizing literally hundreds of thousands of youth. The figures we were able to gather showed that roughly 800,000 youth in the age group of 14 to 16 are engaging in full sexual activity.
We would be potentially criminalizing somewhere in the range of 40% of them if we simply adopted this motion. That is what we are confronted with. I realize those facts may be somewhat disturbing to certain people, but that is the reality and as legislators we must deal with that reality.
We were very clear. We supported the amendments to raise the age to 16 and build in this other defences, so that we would not be criminalizing a large percentage of our youth.
Mr. Richard Harris: Did you share part of your speech with him, Paul?
Mr. Joe Comartin: The member keeps prattling on about wanting a copy my speech. This is all being recorded and perhaps he should be made aware that in fact he can get a copy when I am finished.
The other point that needs to be raised here with regard to this motion is that there is also about 6% of the age group that are beyond the five year differential. We are also looking at potentially criminalizing those, but the determination was made, and rightfully so, that the age gap of five years was the appropriate one. It reflected the reality of what is occurring in terms of defending it, but at the same time it is saying that once a person moves beyond that five year age gap it becomes a statutory prohibition and will be subject to criminal penalty as a result.
(1125)
I want to make one additional point that came up repeatedly in the debate in the justice committee around the age of consent. We have already heard from the member from Mississauga that the government's position, supported by the Bloc, was that the exploitive dependency relationship is the one we have to prohibit. I analyzed that from the perspective of asking what in fact is happening now, because various Criminal Code sections now use the same type of analysis and Criminal Code framework to prohibit this type of relationship.
However, we heard repeatedly from crown prosecutors, some of whom prosecute only criminal offences involving sexual activity, and from a number of the police forces that this methodology, this infrastructure of the Criminal Code, in fact does not work. It simply is not a methodology that can be used with any type of reasonable success in our criminal justice system.
As I say, we heard that repeatedly. As a result of that evidence from the prosecutors and police forces at various levels in the country, it seemed obvious that the government had to shift its position. Unfortunately, it was not prepared to do that at the justice committee. Those amendments failed because of the positions of the government and the Bloc in opposing them.
I believe that debate has to continue. Bill C-2 is now waiting for royal assent, I believe. It went through. Perhaps I should point out that it was with our agreement and the agreement of the Conservatives that it was put into play.
What is going to happen now? There will be a review after five years, I believe, and we will then have to come back and find solid proof that what the prosecutors, the crown attorneys, and the police officers were telling us is in fact true: that it is not going to be effective in dealing with those cases where there are exploitation and dependency, the classic of the young person being exploited, oftentimes right into prostitution.
I firmly believe that the system now being put in place is not going to work and that we will be back here in five or six years and will move to what the Conservative justice critic moved at that time, which we supported. I believe that very strongly.
In conclusion, I want to make one final point. The decision of making this move has to be put in the proper context of dealing with the age of consent. The reality is that when we look at other jurisdictions that have moved to increase the age of consent there has not been a significant increase in the number of convictions, even when they were very solid in what the age of consent should be.
What it has some effect on, and perhaps this is the most positive thing we can expect, is that there has been a communication by the legislature of that jurisdiction of its disapproval. I will not say it is significant, but it has had some effect on lowering the sexual activity among our youth.
We heard from psychologists during the course of the committee hearings that most youth, particularly those who are 14 or 15 years of age, are not in a position to properly judge whether they are ready for full sexual activity. By communicating this as a legislature, we have some impact on those youth. Again, it is not significant in terms of overall percentages, but it does communicate from us as legislators the need for them to perhaps have second thoughts about what type of sexual activity they will be engaged in.
For that reason, we believe that the age of consent should be raised so long as we have that defence ingrained.
(1130)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member from British Columbia for bringing forward this very timely private member's bill. It is her first year in the House of Commons. She has been a very constructive and active member of the House of Commons and this is just another example of the fine work she has been doing as a member of Parliament.
Some of the Liberal and NDP members and some of Bloc members, I guess, would like to believe that 14 year olds are mature enough to make these sorts of decisions, that they are not children anymore, that they are almost like adults and they are free to make those decisions. What really flies in the face of that kind of logic, or lack of logic, is the whole area of the law. In its wisdom, the Liberal government said a long time ago that if people between the ages of 14 and 18 commit a criminal offence they have to be treated differently, not like the adult population. The government brought in the young offenders legislation and amendments and changes over the years, so that in dealing with criminal offences there are different age categories to be considered.
I noticed the other day in a confectionery that anyone who sells tobacco to someone under the age of 19 will face a $4,000 fine. I think it is the Liberal government in Ontario that put this law in place; someone under 19 getting tobacco is so serious that we have to impose a $4,000 fine on anyone who sells it. In some jurisdictions the age to be able to drive an automobile is now 18. People have to be 18 years old to vote in a federal election. The Criminal Code actually imposes obligations on parents to provide the necessaries of life to a child up to a minimum of 16 years of age and most provincial jurisdictions impose that obligation up to the age of 18.
However, the Liberals, in their wisdom, say it is okay for a person 14 years old to get into a sexual relationship with an adult person, someone in their thirties or forties.
Let us look at a few examples. I think it is always good to look at examples. Members opposite find technicalities; they say this is too complicated, that we do not understand the technicalities.
In my constituency two or three years ago, three young men in their twenties picked up a 12 year old girl, gave her beer, drank with her, went out into the country and apparently had sexual intercourse with her. They were in their twenties and she was 12 years of age.
There were two separate trials. One man was convicted on the first go. The other two had a very prominent lawyer in Saskatchewan to defend them. He is a very good lawyer and he knows about the technicalities the Liberals are talking about. They are made for defence lawyers, who like Liberals because when the lawyers get into court the Liberals give them the cracks in the door to create reasonable doubt and so on so that their clients can walk out innocent.
The lawyer pounded away at one fact throughout the trial: that this girl looked a lot older than 12 years of age, that she could have been taken for a 14 year old or even a 15 year old. The lawyer pounded away at that issue. As well, the boys indicated that they thought she was over 14 years of age. It went to the jury. Let us guess what the jury did. I do not know what kind of reasoning the jury went through, but armed with this kind of law the Liberals have put into place, it came back with a not guilty verdict.
Fortunately, the Court of Appeal in Saskatchewan, in its wisdom, reversed that decision and has ordered a new trial, but where the second trial is going to go, I have no idea. There was a 12 year old girl who was seriously victimized because Parliament did not have laws in place to protect our young people.
(1135)
Then we have people like the member for Mississauga South saying that this is too complicated, that the Conservatives do not understand the niceties. I can assure members that the prosecutor and the police officers involved in that case would not buy into the arguments presented by the member from the NDP, who was saying that the police, the prosecutors and everybody in this country are solidly behind the arguments those people over there are raising. That is total and absolute nonsense.
I practised law for 25 years in rural Saskatchewan before I came to this House. Back in the mid-1990s, just about everyone knew everyone in those rural communities. An excellent couple in their late thirties come to my office one day in tears; I knew that couple to be a very good family and outstanding members of their community. What was their story? They had come back from the RCMP. The RCMP had spent two or three days looking into their case and had told them they could not do anything for them.
Their daughter, 14 years old, had taken up a relationship with a person in his late forties. The parents were both in tears in my office. I said that the police had to be wrong. I said that I was not an expert in this area but I would look into it that evening, get back to them the next day and tell them that there had to be a remedy, that our lawmakers in this country, even Liberals, would provide parents with a tool or a remedy for that kind of abhorrent situation.
No, there was not. I went through all the law I could find. There was nothing there to help these people, not a single thing. There were more tears when I told them that. I was the messenger. When I practised law quite often I would get upset with the law because I was the messenger, the one always condemned for delivering the message.
However, it is people like the Liberal members of this government who have the power to make laws in this country that could help the police, society, parents and, more important, our young people in this country. The Liberals fail miserably on these counts. They come up with all these technical loophole arguments as their way of getting around this.
I am really disappointed with the member for Mississauga South. He has always advocated being a strong pro-family person, a person who is always strong on these issues. For him to today get up in this House and raise all these technical reasons as to why this bill should not move ahead is just absolutely shameful. I think his constituents should clearly understand where this guy really is coming from.
I want to raise another issue. It goes back to last year's election campaign. Unfortunately in that campaign a media release came out from the Conservative Party which insinuated or implied that Liberals and the Prime Minister were supportive of child pornography. I disagreed with the headline of that media release, but I think that once we take away the headline and read the text of the news release, the shoe definitely fits this Liberal government. It fits this Prime Minister.
This is not the first time that this type of motion has been before the House of Commons. What is the Prime Minister's voting record on this issue? What is the voting record of most of these Liberal members on this issue? They vote against changing the age from 14 to 16. They say that it is too complicated and we are oversimplifying things.
The Liberals supported an NDP budget bill. They just poured $4.6 billion into four nameless programs with no systems or plans for delivery and so on. With the stroke of a pen they just said that they would shell out $4.6 billion on those four programs and figure it out later. They said not to worry about technicalities or complications. However, what about giving parents like the people I am talking about the power to protect their children? What about giving the police that kind of power? I am inviting the Liberals to do the right thing here for once.
(1140)
This has not been a good spring for anybody. This is one issue I think where right-minded people could get together, do the right thing and help our parents, our young people, our police, our society, our prosecutors and a whole lot more in our society.
We could get away from this neo-Liberal agenda of undermining family institutions and in society. That is the real hidden agenda in our country. It is the neo-Liberal agenda that is undermining our traditions, our long-standing institutions, our families, our police, our parents and our children in our society. That is the danger in our society.
Once Liberals have finished with the marriage bill, then who knows what the next thing is. They probably will go after our churches and take away their tax exemption status. They may even outlaw freedom of speech in those churches, if it has not done that already.
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Motion No. 221, which proposes to restrict sexual activity between adolescents and adults by amending the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.
We all recognize the importance of providing increased protection to youth against sexual exploitation or predatory conduct. However, I do not believe that Motion No. 221 can meaningfully and effectively achieve this objective.
The government's approach to this issue, very seriously reflected in Bill C-2, protection of children and other vulnerable persons, is more comprehensive, more effective and far more responsive to this serious issue. While Motion No. 221 proposes raising the age at which a young person can consent to be exploited, the government's position is clear. We do not accept that young persons can ever consent to being exploited.
Bill C-2 proposes to provide all youth between 14 and 18, not just 14 and 15-year-olds, with enhanced protection against sexual exploitation through the creation of a new prohibition. The new prohibition would require the courts to infer that a relationship with a young person is exploitative of that a young person by looking to the nature and circumstances of that relationship.
The bill would require the court to consider specific indicators of exploitation of each young person, including the age of the young person, any difference in age between the young person and the other person, the evolution of the relationship and the degree of control or influence exerted over the young person.
A number of reasons have been cited in support of Motion No. 221 for raising the age of consent. For example, young persons need to be better protected against being lured for a sexual purpose of the Internet. The Criminal Code was amended in 2002 for exactly that: to create a new prohibition against the use of the Internet to lure a child for the purpose of committing a sexual offence against that child.
The proposed new prohibition against sexual exploitation in Bill C-2 will further strengthen this protection. It directs the court to specifically consider the evolution of the relationship, which could include, for example, whether it evolved secretly over the Internet.
Another reason cited in support of raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age for non-predatory or non-exploitative sexual activity is that it would better protect these youth against being recruited into the sex trade or prostitution related activities.
This is difficult to understand because the age of consent for exploitative sexual conduct, including for prostitution, is already 18 years of age. I do not see how raising the age of consent for non-exploitative conduct from 14 to 16 years can better protect youth in this regard. Moreover, not only is the age of this conduct already 18 years, but the existing penalty for this type of conduct is very significant. Under subsection 212(2.1) of the Criminal Code, anyone who uses force or the threat of force to coerce a young person into prostitution faces a mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment, up to a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
Another reason given in support of Motion No. 221 is that 14 and 15 year olds are too immature to make informed choices about whether to engage in sexual activity and with whom they should engage in such activity.
Consider how the existing criminal law treats and recognizes the developing maturity and capacity of young persons. The age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. The age at which a young person may be subject to an adult sentence for committing a serious violent offence is 14 years. The age of consent to non-exploitative sexual activity is 14 years. The age of consent to exploitative or predatory sexual activity is 18 years.
While it is true that society uses other non-criminal measures to regulate other aspects of the conduct young persons, it would be completely inept to compare, for example, the regulation of when a young person is allowed to drive a car to the criminalization of a young person's engagement in consensual, non-exploitative sexual activity.
I am sure there are many views on what age and under what circumstances young persons should engage in sexual activity. The fact is young persons do engage in sexual activity. On May 3, Statistics Canada's publication, The Daily, reported that by the age of 14 or 15, about 13% of Canadian adolescents have had sexual intercourse. The figure for boys and girls was similar, 12% and 13% respectively. Presumably, they are engaging in other forms of sexual activity at an even earlier age.
How should we respond to this? I believe we should be responding strongly through education, by providing more and better sex education and counselling to young persons to discourage this behaviour. This is far more realistic and has greater potential to protect our young people. We should respond to this by criminalizing those persons who seek out and exploit young persons instead of criminalizing young persons themselves for engaging in sexual activity.
Motion No. 221 focuses on the conduct of the young person. It focuses on their consent to be sexually exploited and it ignores the reality that young persons do engage in sexual activity, from kissing to sexual intercourse. Motion No. 221 would criminalize such typical consensual sexual activity between a 15 and a half year old boy and 16 or 17 year old girlfriend.
(1145)
As I said at the outset, although I strongly support the objective of providing increased protection to youth against sexual exploitation, I do not support Motion No. 221 because it does not achieve this objective. The bottom line is that Bill C-2 is comprehensive and goes further to protect our young people.
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak today, but listening to the debate has triggered a response in my heart that says I should be getting up to say a few things.
I am very concerned about what is happening in our country with respect to our young people. As members know, I worked for many years as an instructor at the college level. I have had many involvements with young people and children over the years in my capacity as a volunteer as well as a professional. It is absolutely necessary for us to give careful consideration to what we do in this Parliament because it affects the well-being of our children and families in the future.
I want to commend my colleague for putting forward the motion. It addresses an issue which the Liberal government is continually ignoring. It keeps whitewashing the solutions, saying that it will solve the problems. It keeps skirting the issue, not getting down to it.
The motion my colleague has put forward addresses the issue of adults having sexual activity with children, with young people. The Liberals are missing the point on this. They keep coming up with these specious arguments, such as it is going to make it criminal if a 14 year old kisses a 15 year old. This is not about that. This is about adults abusing and attacking our young people, our children. It simply and plainly should not happen.
However, as we all know, some people in our society, even in Canada, this wonderful country, are not unselfish and they do not look for the best good. They are in fact selfish. They look for ways in which they can gain sexual pleasure from whomever. That is why we have these limp laws on things like prostitution. It is against the law to talk about it but it is not against the law to do it.
My goodness, why are we not going after the men who prey upon these women? Why are we not going after these adults who would sexually abuse our children and our young people? It is atrocious that in this wonderful country of ours, we offer so little protection for our young people and children.
I learned a principle many years ago. I knew about this even before I became a member of Parliament, and that is we cannot pass a law that will make people good. The purpose of the law is to restrain those who are not good, who are evil, The purpose of the law is to stop those people from exploiting our young people and children who do not have a built-in moral compass that prevents them from doing it.
I am appalled having listened to the speeches from the other side. They are speaking against the motion my colleague has put forward, which would strengthen the protection of our young people and children. It is particularly important because most of the young people who are exploited are young women.
The Liberals over there are always talking about women's rights and equality. They say they are all for it. However, in this case they are totally ignoring young women who are, for the most part, the victims of this exploitation. They are just children at that stage. They need the protection of the law. They need to have some restraint on those people who would use and abuse these beautiful young girls. What a shame we are permitting this to happen in our country.
(1150)
Every once in a while we get accused on this side of being angry. I was thinking about that the other day. It was in the media again that we Conservatives were always angry. I contend just the opposite. I believe in happiness, joy and fulfilment, but I believe in it for others as well. Therefore, when I express what could be construed as anger, it is a justifiable righteous anger against that which is inherently wrong. I will not apologize for that.
We need to have people who stand up for what is right and against what is wrong. I will be one of those people. I have tried to be that in my years as a member of Parliament and certainly in all my years before that as a father, a grandfather, an instructor and as a leader of young people in different organizations.
I contend that we need to support the member's motion to send a message that is unequivocal to some 40-year-old who would exploit one of our young people for his own sexual pleasure. I cannot wrap my head around that. Where have we gone in our society?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am speaking extemporaneously. I do not have a prepared speech because I did not get my staff to do a lot of research. However, I remember a few years ago when an adult from the United States came up to either New Brunswick or Nova Scotia and lured a girl he had met on the Internet. He got her to a motel and had sex with her. Because she was 14, the 40-year-old walked away scot-free. He was able to persuade her that she wanted to do it. That is why she went to the motel with him.
A 40-year-old enticed a 14-year-old and he walked free in Canada. If that same man would have done what he did in his own home state, he would have been in jail. We should not have let him out of the country until he had served about 50 years for that atrocious deed.
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Liberals are wimps. It is time we stand up and protect our young people and our children.
I urge the members opposite not to just read the speeches that are brought to them from the minister's department. The minister has shown over and over again that he has absolutely no understanding of the real world. The departmental officials who are writing these speeches ought to hang their heads in shame as well, as much as the members who are willing to stand up and read them without thought and without any personal convictions on the matter.
I have much more to say but my time is up. I urge members to support the motion. It is worthy. It is in the right direction. It may not be perfect, but if we were to wait for something to be perfect, we would never support a Liberal bill.
(1155)
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank all members who participated in the debate on my private member's Motion No. 221. I appreciate their support and contributions made during the debate.
It is clear that Canada must raise the age of consent from 14 years to at least 16 years of age. Most western democracies already have an age of consent of 16 years or older. In Denmark, France and Sweden the age of consent is 15 years. In Australia, Finland, Germany, Holland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom it is 16 years. In the American states the age of consent is 18 years.
Everyone can see that what I am proposing today is not out of the ordinary. What is out of the ordinary is our current law which allows mature adults to have sexual relations with small children. A 14-year-old cannot vote or legally drive a car, drink alcohol or even buy cigarettes. Certain public TV programs are deemed not suitable for 14-year-olds to watch, but they can have sex with an adult. It is unbelievable.
Pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, and sexual, physical and emotional abuse caused by their adult sexual partners will haunt these children for the rest of their lives. By keeping the age of consent at 14, this weak Liberal government is failing to protect our teens. Every province supports raising the age of consent, as do 80% of Canadians. It is time for the House to join them in their support.
The age of consent law is one of the laws that people really cannot believe is still on our books. In Canada people cannot have naked pictures of 14-year-olds on their computers because it is child pornography and they can be prosecuted for it, but a 50-year-old man can have sex with a 14-year-old and it is legal. That is nonsense.
On top of that, this arrogant Liberal government resists. A common concern raised throughout the debate on Motion No. 221 is that it may criminalize sexual activity among peers. For instance, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said during the first hour of debate on May 19 that such an amendment would enable the courts to try a 16-year-old for having sexual contact of any kind with his 15-year-old girlfriend. Similar concerns were raised by the members for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Northumberland—Quinte West, and Scarborough—Rouge River.
I foresaw this concern. It is the same concern that has been raised over and over again whenever the topic of raising the age of consent has been discussed. As I said during my opening speech, however, there is an easy solution. Changes to the law can contain provisions that will protect young people from being unfairly prosecuted for adolescent romance.
We can easily establish a peer exemption for sexually active younger teens. There is already an exemption in the Criminal Code that allows 12 to 14 year olds to engage in sexual intercourse with one another as long as there is less than two years' difference in their ages. Why could a similar exemption not be written into the law for older teens? In other jurisdictions around the world this is the case. For example, in Tennessee where the age of consent is 18, there is a peer exemption for partners within four years of age of one another. Obviously, this can be done in Canada. All it takes is the political will to do so.
It is obvious that the Liberals are not willing to protect children from child predators and are hiding behind a false pretext or excuse. That is shameful. All parents of young children must remember that when they vote.
In conclusion, I wish to thank everyone for participating in this debate. I express my hope that all members will vote in favour of Motion No. 221.
(1200)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): The time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 29, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
Civil Marriage Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
* * *
[English]
Speaker's Ruling
The Speaker: There are 11 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-38.
Before I address the issues relating to the selection and grouping of these motions for debate, I would like to mention that I have received several submissions pertaining to the admissibility of motions submitted for report stage. These motions of course are not printed on the notice paper and are returned in confidence to the author with reasons why they are procedurally inadmissible. I must state that this has been the normal practice of the House since 1994 when the Standing Orders were amended to provide that only those motions which are considered admissible by the Speaker are to be printed on the notice paper.
[Translation]
It is extraordinary for the Speaker to address admissibility issues in the House. Standing Order 76.1(2) states: “If the Speaker decides that an amendment is out of order, it shall be returned to the Member without having appeared on the Notice Paper.”
[English]
In this instance, the Chair will take certain liberties and explain the three basic reasons why certain report stage motions for Bill C-38 are inadmissible and have been returned to their sponsors.
First, a preamble to a bill can only be amended if it is made necessary due to an amendment to a clause of a bill, or for reasons of clarification. That is why, for example, preambles are considered at the end of clause by clause examination of the bill by the committee.
Second, an amendment to a bill cannot modify a statute or a section of a statute which is not contained in the bill. This is commonly known as the parent act rule. Its primary purpose is to keep amendments focused to the precise provision of the act which is being modified by the bill.
Third, amendments to the clauses of a bill after second reading must respect the scope of the bill, as “Amending Bills at Committee and Report Stages” states on page 5, “The scope of a bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved”. Thus, all amendments must fit within the four corners of the bill to be admissible. They cannot import matters which are not addressed in the bill. They can only refine what is already there.
Regrettably, many report stage motions address matters which are considered beyond the scope of the bill and hence are inadmissible. Many of these procedural issues also arose in committee and were ruled upon by the chair of the legislative committee, the Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole House.
The Chair understands the concerns of members but assures them that the amendments judged to be inadmissible were given close attention and that decisions were exercised based on well-established rules and precedents.
[Translation]
Now, I will proceed with my ruling on the selection and grouping of motions for report stage of Bill C-38.
Motion No. 6 will not be selected by the Chair as it was defeated in committee. Motions Nos. 7, 9 and 11 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.
[English]
All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage. The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:
(1205)
[Translation]
Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 10. Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 4 and 5.
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.
[English]
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 8 and 10 in Group No. 1 to the House.
* * *
Motions in Amendment
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC) moved:
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 1. |
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 2. |
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) moved:
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 7. |
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 15. |
The Speaker: On Motion No. 3, the mover is not here so we are unable to proceed with that motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move Motion No. 3 in lieu of the member for Scarborough Southwest.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to permit the hon. member to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Paul Szabo (for Mr. Tom Wappel) moved:
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 3. |
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise as the first speaker at report stage of Bill C-38, a bill which I believe is not in the best interests of Canada, Canadian citizens or Canadian families. That is why I was pleased to furnish certain amendments to change aspects of this bill to which many Canadians object.
As we know, what this bill seeks to do is to change the meaning of marriage. I think it is important at the outset of any intervention on this bill that we remind ourselves of the unprecedented nature of this bill in the historical and legal context.
Through all recorded human history, in every civilization, in every culture, in every religious tradition, in every secular tradition, in every legal and political tradition, marriage has been understood universally and without exception to mean a committed lifetime sanctified relationship between a man and a woman. There have been cultures that have accepted polygamist relationships--thankfully not in Canada today, at least not legally--but the sociological and anthropological evidence which has been presented before Parliament, and indeed which had been presented by the government to the courts when this matter was being litigated is unanimous, that marriage has always been understood by its nature and its essence to constitute a heterosexual union.
It is equally important at the outset to state yet once more for the record that the ontological meaning of marriage as a heterosexual union, which is by its nature therefore open to the transmission of life and culture, does in no way constitute unjust discrimination against those who seek recognition for unions in non-traditional relationships.
Indeed in Canada today, in every province, there are social benefits provided to people who live in non-marital unions, people of the same gender, people of opposite genders who do not live in a marital relationship. There is no legal prohibition. There is no legal sanction. There is no cultural opprobrium attached to that kind of relationship. There is no denial of benefits attached to those non-traditional relationships.
What this bill seeks to do, unique in all of human history, is to change the meaning of marriage, not to just change its definition, but to change its essential meaning. The motions which stand in the House in my name today are predicated on this belief. I submit that this Parliament does not have the power to change the meaning of essential social institutions which predate this Parliament itself. Marriage predates the Canadian state. It predates the modern state itself. It is a natural institution.
I submit that it is a dangerous moment from a libertarian point of view when the state, through a bill such as this, seeks to intervene into an institution which belongs to civil society, not to the sphere of the state, to change the meaning of something which is natural and ontological, which is not a toy, a plastic entity that the state can play with and change its meaning as it pleases.
I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the appropriate limits of power of the modern state. I would further submit that this is widely understood by Canadians. There is really no contest that the consensus among public opinion polling reflects that some two-thirds of Canadians are opposed to changing the meaning of marriage in law.
(1210)
A majority of Canadians oppose unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and rightfully so. A majority of Canadians support the provision of benefits on grounds such as domestic partnership relationships, which are grounded on unions of economic dependency rather than relationships of a mere conjugal nature, and yet still two-thirds of Canadians, from every culture that exists in this country, from every corner of the globe who have come to this country to build a future for themselves and their families, recognize that marriage is, as the Supreme Court said the last time it spoke to this issue in the Egan case in 1995, “by nature a heterosexual institution”.
It recognized what the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized, which is the right for a man and a woman to marry. Two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the European Convention on Human Rights recognizes, that there is a right for “a man and a woman to marry”. These two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the Organization of American States covenant on human rights recognizes, which is that men and women have a right to marry.
These two-thirds of Canadians, who we represent here today, believe what the United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled, which is that it is in no way a violation of human or civil rights to recognize that marriage constitutes a union between a man and a woman.
These two-thirds of Canadians recognize what the Supreme Court of Canada said on this matter when it last ruled in 1995 on the constitutionality of the definition of heterosexual marriage, when Judge LaForme said that marriage was “by its nature a union between a man and a woman”.
I submit that these two-thirds of Canadians are in the broad mainstream of public and political opinion of historical precedent and legal practice in this and in every other country of the world, which is why I submit that we should stop and pause before rushing in to adopt the bill, overriding the consensus of history and the consensus of the Canadian people, which represent very important values that we ought not to undermine without very serious forethought.
I therefore put these motions forward. The first seeks to delete clause 1 of the bill. As I have said, there is no foundation in law, practice, tradition or history for a distinction between civil as opposed to any other kind of marriage, including religious marriage. I further believe that the title of the bill could mislead and confuse Canadians. The bill attempts to redefine the definition of marriage for all purposes to the extent that could be done by the Parliament of Canada. Because I believe Parliament is attempting to redefine in a fundamental way the capacity of persons who have had no such capacity in the past to marry, I therefore submit that the act is simply misnamed.
With respect to my second motion now before the House, it would delete clause 2 which provides that marriage for civil purposes be redefined. This again is a misnomer. In any case, defining marriage as simply the union of any two persons was not dictated by any decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. As I have reminded the House, the last time the courts spoke to this matter it reaffirmed the heterosexual nature of marriage. I submit this because Parliament is not compelled as a matter of law and would be going against the opinions and views of a clear majority of Canadians by so redefining the institution of marriage.
With respect to clause 8 in the name of my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, it would amend the bill be deleting clause 7, which would delete the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. This section of the act deals with the allocation of pensions. Bill C-38 does not replace this section of the act with a new clause. The committee heard no discussion about the impact of deleting this clause on the allocation of these pensions. It therefore begs the question of how the government is planning to protect survivors who currently depend on these pensions.
Finally, with respect to Motion No. 10 in the name of my colleague from Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, it seeks to delete clause 15 which relates to the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the heading before it. These sections confirm the traditional definition of marriage as it then was in 2000. This is like rewriting history. It is one thing to let legislators make changes but it is another to rewrite history.
(1215)
What we seek to do by deleting Motion No. 10 is restore the clearly stated intent of Parliament in 2000, including the entire cabinet and some 90% of the Liberal government at the time who voted into law the preamble to the Modernization of Benefits Act to recognize the essential heterosexual nature of marriage. I ask the government simply to be consistent and not change, without having an electoral mandate, its position on the fundamental question of what marriage means.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech made a lot of sense and provided a lot of clarity.
Could the member for Calgary West elaborate a bit more on what happened in 1999 when the present government firmly declared that it would never challenge the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman? I wonder if he could talk a bit more about the lack of consistency in 2005.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, my colleague was not here in 1999 but had she been so she would have been witness to a debate on a motion brought forward by a member to reaffirm the House of Common's understanding that marriage constituted a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that all necessary means be used to protect this definition in law.
The reason the motion came to the House was because of various court decisions that began to cause serious doubt about the intention of the courts to maintain respect for the common law understanding of marriage.
Parliament, never having actually used its constitutional responsibility under section 93 to define in statute the definition of marriage, has always simply respected the common law heterosexual understanding of marriage. Following the debate in 1999, Parliament decided overwhelmingly, by a vote of 240 to 50-some, to retain the traditional definition of marriage.
At the time, the current right hon. Prime Minister voted in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage and using all legal means necessary to maintain it. The current Deputy Prime Minister, who at the time was the minister of justice, stood in this place and said that the government had no intention whatsoever of ever seeking to change the definition. She went out of her way to assure Canadians that even the suggestion that there might be such an agenda in the future was ridiculous and irresponsible. Accordingly, I believe that something like 90% of the Liberal members of Parliament at the time stood in their places and voted to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
I would remind my colleague that this was just a few months before an election. Those members were apparently unwilling to reveal their hidden agenda at the time, which was to support a change in the definition of marriage. We see the same thing before us here today.
The reason we are now sitting beyond the scheduled date of Parliament for the first time since 1988 and, I believe, the second time in post-war history, is that members opposite are terrified of facing the verdict of Canadians on their hidden agenda to change the meaning of marriage. They have recalled us to this place to try to jamb this bill through so they do not have to face their constituents on this matter in the summer or in the next election. They want to say that the matter has been dealt with and is behind us.
I put those members on notice that even if Bill C-38 should pass, this debate will continue in Canadian society because the majority of Canadians will not accept the state taking over a fundamental institution of civil society and changing its essential meaning without public consensus.
(1220)
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I come to this debate today with a sense of sadness in my heart because I never thought it would come to this, at least not so soon.
I also come with a sense of sadness because I have children and three grandchildren. I anticipate that I will have great-grandchildren hopefully before I pass off this earthly scene. Because of that and because of the ill -thought through and ill-advised move that is being made in these days, I think it will have a very serious effect on our society, as it has already been proven in Scandinavia and other countries like that.
I, like many others on this side of the House, and our party, the Conservative Party, am grateful that in some of the other parties there are a few individuals who hold as well that the natural law, the superseding law that actually over the course of many years down through history has been the matter of a heterosexual union, a man and woman, an opposite gender definition of marriage to the exclusion of all others.
We need that within in our society because it builds a bond between those two people and then children come into that union. Also we state “to the exclusion of all others” because there is nothing like unfaithfulness to one's spouse or to one's partner that will break that marriage down and destroy that union to the detriment of those individuals, to the detriment of the children and of course society at large.
Marriage and the family based on marriage are basic fundamental institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of foundations lightly. We should not be doing it in the manner that we are in these last months.
I do not believe the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution.
My colleague who just spoke well made the point that there are other ways to address this issue and yet the the Liberal government, that insists on a wonderful Canadian virtue of tolerance and working things out in an amicable manner, has ignored that in a very divisive way. When it could have addressed this issue in a rather different manner, it has chosen to take the most divisive manner possible and drive a wedge right down the very middle of Canadian society with a great deal of vigour.
One of the major purposes of marriage has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and raising of children. That does not mean that other relationships are not loving and valuable. Often in the definition of marriage people will say that they have some of the earmarks of marriage. That may be true to a point but it does not include that one fundamental purpose of marriage relationships, of a bond of a man and a woman coming together in terms of the next generation, the procreative element. There is no possible way in the same gender, a same sex relationship, that procreation can occur. The fruit of that union does not come as a result of anything other than an opposite gender definition.
We believe as well that the institution of marriage has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father and the right of every child to know and to be known by their mother and father.
We have often heard of those great anguishes, struggles and journeys of individuals who were adopted to find out who that mother and father were; who were the individuals who procreated them, the biological ones who brought them into being.
If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex marriage requirement we will be saying that the goal of marriage is no longer important.
I guess that is why it leaves me with a great sense of sadness, disappointment and discouragement at this juncture and at this point in history insofar as the law is a teacher. Ancient texts have said that the law is a teacher. It teaches us what is good, what is not so good and those things that are to be exalted, uplifted, encouraged, reinforced and, in this case, one way or the other, for good or for bad, the law will be a teacher again.
What kind of message will it send to our children and to our young people as they are coming up to that age of marriage? is it that a one night stand, a two week shack up or a six week living together kind of thing is equivalent in every respect as individuals coming before witnesses, family and others, before God and committing themselves to one another until death do them part, for life?
(1225)
What kind of a message do we send to people who might be in the galleries today and our young pages here? What kind of a message do we send to them about the importance of the institution of marriage?
We know the answer to that. In some of those Scandinavian countries, we have already seen the very devastating impact that there has been to marriage. There has been less marriage. There are less children coming about as a result of marriage. There are more children born to single parent situations, where individuals, while remarkable, are taking care of those children 24/7.
The central question that we are wrestling with is whether marriage is still connected to this potential to have and raise children, and to provide a stable environment for those children, or whether it is simply connected with the personal needs of two adults in a close relationship.
We know from untold documentation and research to no end that, and it is there for anybody who would care to look at it, children who are in heterosexual married, intact family relationships do better. There are a great deal more problems with alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and in not doing so well in the schooling system and other things such as criminal involvement. The studies have been done. I do not need to say that. There will of course be individuals who will torque that and twist that comment. If they were to simply look seriously at the research that is there, they would find that demonstrated in spades.
We are coming to the point where if Bill C-38 were to pass, there would be an emphasis on an adult relationship. Instead of marriage being that which takes on responsibilities and provides for children, “it's all be about adult relationships, about me and myself as an individual and the pleasure I get in this union”.
I get a great deal of pleasure in the relationship and union with my wife. She has been a faithful companion to me for some 29 years now. It is beyond that. It is more than that. It is about the children that have come into the world by way of our union and the responsibility that we have to them. It is not just about adults. It is not just about two individuals. It is about the offspring and the progeny as well.
Margaret Somerville, the ethicist at McGill University, makes this point very eloquently in the recent book Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment, an excellent book. I have it on my desk and it is a book that I recommend for anyone to read. There are some excellent essays there. Dr. Somerville says:
|
The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one? The answer will decide who takes priority when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a child and the claims of adults. Those who believe that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, oppose same sex marriage because...it would mean that marriage could not continue to institutionalize and symbolize the inherently procreative capacity between the partners; that is, it could not be primarily child centred. In short...accepting same sex marriage...means abolishing the norm--the accepted value--that children...have a prima facie right to know and be reared within their own biological family by their father and mother. Carefully restricted, governed, and justified exceptions to this norm, such as adoption, are essential. But abolishing the norm would have a far-reaching impact. |
That is probably the most central reason why we need to be concerned about society and the impact on society down the road. The birth rate has seriously declined as it is. Then, more importantly, when we have children born in other kinds of relationships and not cared for through a lifetime and supported through at least some two decades of growing up years, then it begins to have an effect on society in terms of the social cost, the justice cost, the cost on education and health and so on.
We still have that standing on the record in this country. It has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has not even yet ruled that traditional marriage is unconstitutional in any way. It has not come to that point. Dare I say that if the court was tested on that, it may well not either.
I note the fact that whether this law passes in its present form or not, there is a higher law. There is a natural law. We can say black is white and we can say white is black. We can twist it how we want in terms of federal, provincial, or municipal laws. At the ultimate end of the day there is a higher natural law that says traditional heterosexual marriage, the opposite gender union, is what constitutes marriage and will continue over time down the road.
(1230)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague from Saskatchewan in reference to the issue of marriage. I know that he has been a strong advocate and supporter of the present definition of marriage, and certainly would not like to see anything happen to this wonderful institution.
There is no question that for this issue to be decided in the House at this time and being rapidly pushed through is doing an injustice to the Canadian public. The Canadian public should have a much more prominent position on the stage when it comes to deciding what is to happen here.
It does not matter what our views are on the issue, the public should be considered in the debate, and it is not. It should be a very healthy debate because we are actually proposing fundamental changes to the whole institution of marriage that we have known as the union of a man and a woman for hundreds of years. That will obviously not happen.
I do not understand the process on the other side, which talks about a democratic process to decide the issue. The Prime Minister and the justice minister are convinced that the legislation is about human rights, about the charter of rights. If they have decided that, why is it that the Prime Minister is not allowing his caucus, especially the frontbenches, to vote freely on this matter?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I have puzzled hard and long over the issue of why the Liberal government insists on driving and pushing this issue when it had created such a turmoil in society. We know that the more debate that has gone on and the more discussion that has occurred, the polls have begun to tip more in terms of 60% being opposed to it. If there are other possibilities in the mix or other modifications, it rises to even higher than that.
The Canadian public says that there is a different way to handle it. It should be done differently. I can speculate, but I do not know if I have the right answers in terms of why the Liberals intend to drive this divisive thing down on society and why they insist on wanting it. It was not being asked for.
The Attorney General of Canada, whose role it is to uphold the laws of this land, has thrown out case after case. It has not been vigorously challenged in the lower courts. Certainly, that is a good question to ask.
I cannot speculate what is in the hearts of individuals who are pushing this issue and ramming it forward because it is not a human right. None of the international courts have said that. There are different and other ways to accommodate some of that, but certainly it is without precedent. It is reprehensible, a word I am permitted to use in this place, in terms of the Prime Minister not allowing and attempting to bind the conscience of his own members.
Some have said that we cannot really bind the conscience of somebody else. They can do what they want. However, when we bring the kinds of pressures, inducements and offers to individuals, it is tremendous pressure. Thankfully, there are those individuals who stand on principle and have resisted that. They have resisted the siren call and the lure of it. They have stood by their principles and resisted it.
I find it rather appalling and very disturbing in this place that on such a matter, especially a moral issue which most people concede this involves, there would not be a total free vote. There is not and we are all aware that there is a whipped vote in the Liberal Party.
There are those on the government frontbenches, the ministers, who have no choice. They have to, they are forced to, they are obliged to, and they are pressured and induced to vote with the government. I find that really abhorrent, a very sad statement. That would be on the Prime Minister's conscience in terms of the judgment he makes in respect of that and he will live with that. When he is long gone from this place, he will have to look in the mirror and respond to why he actually did that, why he needed to do that when it was not at all required.
(1235)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to address the bill in its totality. This is probably the most important bill that has been addressed by Parliament since I have been here in the last 12 years. I was very disappointed with the bill itself in terms of what it tried to present and what it in fact actually presents.
The bill and the representations of the justice minister have been that all of the protections necessary with regard to religious beliefs and to matters of conscience already exist in the charter. I tend to agree, but if we accept that, then we also accept the preambles which are not operative. In the reprint there is a clause that says “for greater certainty” and in clause 3 it says “it is recognized that”. These are declaratory clauses.
The title of the bill is the civil marriage act and that marriage is, for civil purposes, the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. That is the entire bill. Although there are some consequential amendments to other acts, they are simply reflective of those provisions.
I want to raise this from the standpoint that maybe the public is somewhat disconcerted about the words that have been used. I suspect, judging by what people have said to me, that the public do not understand what difference between civil marriage and marriage as defined in common law before the changes from the Halpern decision.
We also have a Marriage Act. One of the things that most Canadians would probably be surprised to know is that marriage is not defined in the laws of Canada today. It is a matter of definition in the common law. In fact, when the bill was before Parliament to deal with the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian persons, all of the references and inclusions of the definition of marriage were deleted from all existing legislation. There was, however, a preamble to that bill, which basically said that nothing in this bill takes away from the fact that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision with regard to the reference of the four questions, said something in what I believe was section 60 that was quite disturbing to many. It said, and I will paraphrase it, that in the absence of unique circumstances of which we will not speculate, the right for religious persons or persons of religious groups to deny marriage to same sex persons will be protected.
It is kind of an ominous statement to suggest that something might come up. One of the reasons for report stage motions is an effort to draw the line in the sand that deals with the protections of matters related to conscience and religious beliefs under section 2(a) of the charter.
In the legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-38 there was one additional clause. It was a declarative clause and I will read it into the record. It was an important achievement of those on the committee who felt it was necessary to identify for Canadians that there was a strong view of Parliament included in the bill. It states:
|
For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. |
(1240)
That is the legalese, but it basically says that under section 2(a) of the charter those who continue to express their conscience or religious belief with regard to marriage are not at risk.
However, there is this case of the statement within the Supreme Court response to the reference of the four questions, which raises the spectre that this may very well come back, and I have no doubt it will. The question will come back in the form of, “I was born into this church, I have been in this church all of my life and the church has no right to deny my right to be married in my church”. The matter will come before the courts.
It is extremely important for all hon. members, regardless of their position on the definition of marriage, to ensure they have on the record that it is the will of Parliament to ensure that matters of conscience and religious beliefs shall not be challenged or trumped by the equality provisions under section 2(a) of the charter.
One of the previous speakers talked about human rights and the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights wherein the definition of marriage was sustained. When we talk about the equality provision under the charter and the concern that it would be trumped, the fact is even should Bill C-38 pass, persons of religious groups could refuse to marry same sex persons. That means the equality provisions of the charter are in conflict and will be in conflict. There is not true equality here. The equality is subject to and provides the opportunity for those who, because of matters of conscience or religious beliefs, choose not to perform marriages of same sex persons.
I would have wished the representations with regard to the bill could have been clearer. Unfortunately, some of the debate has been skewed into some other areas. Quite frankly, I think the starting point for all who have heard the debate in this place must very well be to ask the question, what is the point at which we abandon all the fundamental basic institutions of our society? I cannot think of any institution other than the institution of marriage which is more fundamental to a strong Canada and to a vibrant society. Society exists and sustains itself because of the family and marriage. Without that, society as we know it would cease to exist.
I hope that other members will participate in the debate to ensure our commitment to Canadians that matters of conscience and religious beliefs as protected under section 2(a) of the charter will never be challenged by the argument on the equality issue.
(1245)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened to the member across the way carefully. I think one should listen to him carefully because he is very consistent in his position.
He talked about the lack of clarity in Bill C-38. The member was in the House in 1999 when the Prime Minister made a pledge to take all necessary steps to preserve the definition of marriage. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the House leader, all voted in favour of that motion. Now the member is talking about a lack of clarity. I thought it was very clear what members on that side of the House would do. What happened?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, there certainly was a clarity back in 1999. My clarity concern was with regard to Bill C-38. The member is not talking about that.
In Bill C-38 we have a series of whereas which tend to tell a story. However, the court basically said in its decision on the four questions and specifically mentioned the definition of marriage did not appear in any federal statute. Yet it was in the preamble of the benefits improvement bill. The Supreme Court has used that against the position on Bill C-38.
I only raise it from the standpoint, for the member's interest, that if we were to take out all the whereas clauses, which have no force in law, and if we were to take out the others, what we would be left with is marriage is the union of any two persons to the exclusion of all others with no defining characteristics whatsoever. This is the fundamental flaw of the bill.
Marriage no longer has any defining characteristics. Marriage was trashed by the Halpern decision in which it basically said that children could exist in a relationship through adoption, through a previous marriage or through reproductive technologies et cetera.
Since when does the exception make the rule? Marriage is a founding institution of society. It is a fundamental institution. It contemplates family and children. The tragedy of the bill is that children have not been the issue of debate and they should have been.
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have sat in the House and watched the member get up and profess to have made a certain decision on this issue. Yet when opportunities presented themselves to vote the bill down through political maneuvering, in which the Liberal Party is the well known strategist when it comes from behind with the dirty deeds, the gentleman did not put his money where his mouth is.
Why has the Liberal Party chosen to dictate the direction of the morality of the country? I think on page 85 of the youth Liberal policy platform, who are the up and coming leaders in the Liberal Party, the intention is to legalize prostitution next.
This morning we discussed raising the sexual consent to 16. However, the Liberals did not think that is necessary. Let us leave it at 14. Perhaps in a couple of years it will be 12 or 8. I wonder if we will legalize prostitution if 14-year-old prostitutes are legal.
The member conveniently speaks against homosexual marriage but does nothing about it.
What about the religious freedom of the cabinet ministers in the Liberal Party who are not allowed to vote their conscience when it comes to this? Frankly, I heard one of the ministers opposite tell the Catholic community to sit down and shut up. Guess what? The position I hear from the member opposite is empty and it means nothing. Quit wasting our time, let us move on.
(1250)
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I have always defended the family and marriage and I will continue to do so. I will vote against Bill C-38. I wish I had a chance to answer the rest of the member's questions, but he very much has the wrong idea of what the facts are.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the House with respect to the report that has been received from the legislative committee on Bill C-38, being the civil marriage act.
The question of ensuring equal access to civil marriage for same sex couples is one that has engaged large numbers of Canadians, in particular Canadians of religious faith, as marriage is a religious sacrament to many, beyond a civil ceremony with legal consequences. As a result, many groups and individuals in our society have thought seriously about this issue and have important contributions to make to the debate.
[Translation]
A good number of them were prepared to take the time and make the necessary effort to present their points of view to the legislative committee and provide written observations.
For four weeks, 12 other members of this House, representing all parties, and I had the privilege of hearing their thoughts on future challenges and their dreams for the future of our great country, as well as their reservations and concerns on all aspects of Bill C-38.
[English]
The bill is a model of citizen engagement in the democratic process and I was honoured to be part of it. Indeed as the Minister of Justice has pointed out, the subject matter of the bill has had more discussion and debate, both here in the House and throughout the land, than almost any other issue.
The committee adopted the testimony and the evidence presented to the previous House committee on justice and human rights, which travelled to some 12 cities, heard over 450 witnesses and received over 300 written submissions and many thousands of e-mails and letters. Between then and now the question has been considered by the courts, of which including provinces and territories we are now at 9, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada that reviewed the government's draft legislation with the aid of 18 intervenors.
[Translation]
The committee has heard from over 60 witnesses representing a broad range of opinion, who came to Ottawa to share their views and concerns.
[English]
These included religious representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Fellowship, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the United Church, the Unitarian Church, Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, lawyers representing the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Law Commission of Canada and many others, as well as the diverse interest groups such as the Home School Legal Defence Association and the Institute for Canadian Values, academics from the disciplines of law, sociology, political science, psychology and theology, gay and lesbian organizations such as EGALE and the Coalition pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, marriage commissioners from at least three different provinces and representatives of some of Canada's ethnic communities such as the Chinese Canadian National Council. It was a wide and enriching dialogue and members listened very carefully to what was being said by all.
(1255)
[Translation]
I want the hon. members of this House who did not have the chance to be a part of this dialogue to know that it was marked by respect. All the groups and individuals, and all the political parties, regardless of their views on extending equal access to civil marriage to same sex couples, agreed that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same respect and dignity as any other group of Canadians.
[English]
Indeed, almost all groups and individuals took as a starting place that the equal benefits and responsibilities of married couples should be extended to same sex couples. The debate was over different visions of what that equal respect means in terms of the law.
There has been significant social evolution in Canada in our attitudes toward the importance of full participation for all minorities and specifically in terms of gay and lesbian Canadians. The presentations and discussions at these committee hearings provide strong evidence of that respect.
Many hours of the committee's time were spent in discussion of the wide range of views on the role of marriage in our society. Central to this aspect of the debate is the recognition that civil marriage differs in law from religious marriage. This premise was not always accepted by witnesses, particularly those whose understanding of marriage was anchored entirely within their faith with no recognition of its civil nature. Committee members stressed that the bill would mean that religions would continue to have the ability to marry whomever meets the criteria of their particular religion.
Yet many of the witnesses to the legislative committee made us increasingly aware of the level of concern over the possible unintended ramifications for religious groups of any changes to civil marriage. David Novak, a Judaic scholar from the University of Toronto, was particularly articulate on this aspect when he explained that when the purpose is seen in the civil context as addressing an injustice--here, the exclusion of a particular group from civil marriage--then axiomatically it appears that the religious groups which choose to preserve the heterosexual definition of marriage are perpetuating that injustice and so could be viewed as “counterculture”.
[Translation]
There are those to whom marriage is a sacrament. Marriage plays an important role in religious beliefs and inevitably is subject to a broad range of opinion. That, in part, is what gave rise to one of the two amendments made to the bill during consideration in committee, which added a new provision to the preamble.
[English]
It states:
|
--it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage;... |
The second point I want to emphasize to members of this House is that the focus of the committee was on ensuring that Bill C-38 provides a balance in its two foundational principles, extending equal rights to a minority and ensuring respect for the fundamental guarantee of religious freedom. Within the context of Bill C-38, this meant ensuring the continuing freedom of religious groups and of religious officials to make their own decisions on how to approach marriage within their faiths and beliefs.
This intention to balance these two compelling charter rights and freedoms can be seen in the structure of the bill itself. Its essence is contained in two simple provisions. The first states:
|
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. |
I stress “civil purposes”.
The second states:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
The intent to balance these two principles can also be seen in the preambles to the bill. Two in particular speak to religious freedom. The first one states:
|
WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;... |
The second one states:
|
WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;... |
The intent to strike a balance so that both rights are fully protected and neither takes precedence over the other can also be seen in the government's decision to first refer draft legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada last year before tabling this bill in the House. The major reason for the government making this reference was to respond to the concerns that religious freedom might be at risk by ensuring that the highest court in the land agreed with the government's view that religious freedom was already fully protected by the charter.
In response to the concerns of some religious groups and individuals, the government posed the question directly to the Supreme Court:
|
Does the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect religious officials from being compelled to perform a marriage between two persons of the same sex that is contrary to their religious beliefs? |
In its response to the reference, the Supreme Court made one of the strongest statements ever on the nature of the charter's guarantee of freedom of religion.
I note that my time is up, but clearly, I believe, the way has been very clear to bring forward this bill and to demonstrate that equality, respect and dignity are a very important part of Canadian life.
(1300)
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
I will certainly make the assumption that he is one of the first speakers on behalf of the Liberal Party because of his responsibility in acting in concert with the Minister of Justice, who presumably takes the lead on this as it is within the justice portfolio or the overall responsibility of the Minister of Justice. His parliamentary secretary would, I am sure, be very much involved with the strategy for putting this bill through.
The member talked about what a challenging issue this is, one that touches all members and indeed many Canadians very deeply. In fact, I cannot think of a single question before this Parliament which would so deeply touch the consciences and the beliefs of individual members of Parliament. There are divisions within Canadian society on this. I would suggest that a majority of Canadians probably support the traditional definition of marriage, but nonetheless there are those divisions.
Thus, in any group of individuals brought together, there would be different opinions on this. Certainly it is important for people to be able to express those differences. That is my question for the parliamentary secretary. In putting together the strategy to get this bill through the House, if he was speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice, what thoughts did they have when they came up with a strategy that does not allow the members of the cabinet a free vote?
The cabinet is a reflection of Canadian society. I am sure it has the same divisions that exist throughout Canadian society. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us how the strategy came about that cabinet would be bound by this. On something that touches and quite frankly divides so many Canadians in such a profound way, why would cabinet members not have been given the complete freedom to vote as they wanted on this bill? What does he think? That is my question.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is an interesting one, but I think it should be also layered with the thought that what we are dealing with here is a human right under the charter. In fact, when we look at human rights, I am not certain why there should be so much debate within the House if what we are talking about is a human right, that is, the equality of access to a civil institution. I believe it is very important for us, having heard all of the witnesses we did, to reflect back on the diverse commentary.
In the end, the question really came down to looking at the definition of a civil marriage that fit a pluralistic society and that also met the standards we had set as a Parliament within the charter itself. This was the key that one had to seek out. I believe that in fact it has been sought out. I do believe that this bill meets the expectations of those of us who not only respect rights but also respect the charter.
I believe this bill is the appropriate bill. Having had some additions at committee, I believe it has come back to the House in a form that ought to be able to meet our expectations.
(1305)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): Madam Speaker, the member is being completely inconsistent. A free vote is being allowed for the entire Liberal caucus except the cabinet. He has not answered the question. Why is it a free vote for all of caucus because it is a conscience issue, yet for cabinet it is not and suddenly becomes a different issue? He is being inconsistent. I would like him to explain that inconsistency.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin: Madam Speaker, the question is the substance of the bill. The question is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is before us. That is the important issue before this Parliament. That is what we need to be debating. This is the question that is of substance for all of us.
I know that most people in this place have already made up their minds. I do not think there is much doubt about that. But I think the reality is that the debate going on in this place still needs to be focused on this bill before the House and the substance within it.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Madam Speaker, before beginning the debate, as such, I rise on a point of order. Consultations have taken place among the parties, and, if you seek it, you will find there is unanimous consent to adopt the following amendment. I move:
|
That Bill C-38 be amended by adding, after line 5 on page 6, the following: |
|
11.1 Section 149.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2): |
|
(6.2.1) For greater certainty, subject to subsections (6.1) and (6.2), a registered charity with stated purposes that include the advancement of religion shall not have its registration revoked or be subject to any other penalty under Part V solely because it or any of its members, officials, supporters or adherents exercises, in relation to marriage between persons of the same sex, the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
If you seek the unanimous consent of the House, I believe you will find it.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Amendment agreed to)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine): Resuming debate. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I cannot help starting the debate by saying, finally. Finally, we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and finally, we are seeing the end of a process that began long ago, all too long ago.
Contrary to what some in this House are saying, the debate is not proceeding too quickly, and the bill is not being rushed. That is simply not true.
In Canada, the debate began sometime around 1999, when the Law Reform Commission of Canada produced a report entitled: Beyond Conjugality. Since then, there has been lots of debate and considerable confrontation and discussion. The Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness heard 467 witnesses on the subject. I was present on the committee when the vast majority of them were heard.
The standing committee whose report we are debating today broadened the definition, the concept of technical witness, in order to hear over 60 witnesses on the matter before us.
I heard the Conservatives say that we were pushing to get the bill passed. Allow me to read part of an editorial from what is no doubt their preferred paper, the National Post, not a sovereignist or a left leaning paper. I will quote the article in the language in which it was written.
[English]
|
But whatever side of the issue one is on, the notion that reforms are being rushed through without proper debate is overblown. |
|
In fact, it's hard to think of a policy issue that has been the subject of more debate in this country over the past two years. After committee hearings, endless public analysis and the 2004 election in which voters were well aware that a re-elected Liberal government intended to legalize gay marriage, the personal stance of virtually every MP in this country is already well-documented. And given the degree to which opinions on the issue are inflamed, it is highly unlikely that any of those positions will change in the foreseeable future, no matter how much more debate there is. |
(1310)
[Translation]
That appeared in the National Post on Friday, June 3, 2005.
So, to say that there has not been sufficient debate, that this is being rushed through, is completely untrue. They are simply being disingenuous in suggesting such a thing.
This debate, then, has almost reached its conclusion. Contrary to what has been said all too often, we are not witnessing a radical transformation of marriage, we are witnessing the evolution of an institution that is far from static and that has changed over the centuries.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, to which the majority of the population of this country belongs, polygamy was permitted a few hundred years ago. It was then outlawed. We need not go so far back; barely 50 years ago in Quebec, a women who married lost her status as an adult. She became a minor and the responsibility of her husband, who was supposed to act as a “responsible man” or fatherly head of the household.
Today, as a result of evolution, thank God, women and men are full and equal partners. We are not talking about several hundred years ago, merely several decades ago.
Societies change over time. Institutions, which are the backbone or an essential part of any society, must also change or they may cease to exist.
Two parameters have determined the approach taken by the Bloc Québécois in this debate. As we know, there is a free vote, certainly. We have an official position that was guided by two parameters.
First, we believe in human rights, particularly the right to equality as set forth in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been determined to give same-sex couples the right to marry, a position favoured by the vast majority of Bloc Québécois members. We want to be sure, therefore, that the right to equality, the right to same sex marriage, is upheld.
Second—and even though we were speaking about civil marriage—freedom of religion is just as important. We want to ensure that freedom of religion enables churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues that refuse to marry same sex couples to continue doing so. However, the amendment to which I obtained unanimous consent a little while ago clarifies one fear—or, I hope, removes one fear—and will diminish the concern of some people that their churches, temples, synagogues or mosques could lose their charitable status.
An analogy could easily be made with the Catholic Church. Not allowing women to become priests is, in itself, discriminatory. Not allowing divorced people to marry in the Catholic Church is, in itself, discriminatory. However, this dogma of the Catholic Church is protected under freedom of religion in the Quebec and Canadian charters.
The Bloc Québécois and all those who favour same sex marriage have no intention at all of removing freedom of religion, threatening the freedom to hold dogmas that sometimes seem, on the face of it, to contradict the equality rights of certain people in our society.
I do not think that the amendment I introduced this afternoon is necessary.
(1315)
However, including this amendment in Bill C-38, and stating in black and white that no church or religious group will lose its status as a charitable organization, allays the fears of the many groups that came to committee to share their concerns. They were not afraid of marrying same sex partners. I asked that question almost every time. They were afraid of losing their status as a charitable organization. In fact, in committee I asked one of the religious groups for a suggestion for the wording of this amendment and the amendment as introduced was very much inspired by that suggestion.
This morning, by unanimously allowing the inclusion of this amendment in Bill C-38, the House has demonstrated good faith and shown that all these religious groups have nothing to fear, that their freedom of religion and their definition of marriage will continue to apply in their institutions.
Again, I encourage all my colleagues to support Bill C-38 in order to show our opposition to discrimination and our support for human rights and the right to equality for our gay and lesbian constituents. The bill should also be supported to show that our appreciation for difference, whether religious, ethnic, cultural or sexual orientation, is a credit and a benefit to our society. Finally, we should support Bill C-38 in order to show the world that we are tolerant to differences and, better yet, we embrace these differences because they create a richer society for us and for our children.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened intently with the good work of our interpreters to the words spoken by my colleague from the Bloc. I always say that I appreciate the work of the interpreters because being a unilingual Canadian I can only communicate to those hon. members via the work of the interpreters.
My question for the member has to do with the framing of this debate on an issue of equality, which is the only argument I have heard from the other side that bears any weight at all, and yet the issue of equality has not been addressed since it is only equality for homosexuals engaged in conjugal activity. All others are excluded. Therefore the whole argument of equality falls somewhat short of the mark.
Furthermore, when one compares the struggles for equality in past history with this one, there is a missing link of great significance. There was a time in the United States when people of colour, as they are now called, were struggling for equality. It was a worthy fight and, thankfully, they eventually won it. However the blacks in the United States never asked to be called white. They just wanted the same rights. Similarly in this country and in others, we have had to struggle for women's rights. Thankfully, there have been some large gains made in this.
I think in Canada now there are many fewer areas in which women are discriminated against and yet never have I heard women saying that they want equal rights with men and therefore they want to be called men. They do not. They just want equal rights.
In this struggle for so-called equality for same sex couples, why do they want to use the same word as describes heterosexual marriage and has for millennia? Why not just go for the equality, which I and my party support, and let us not play the semantics game of changing the dictionary and using words that mean other things?
(1320)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, of course blacks never asked to be called whites. However, they did ask for access to the same institutions, churches, restaurants, voting locations, washrooms, in short, for access to all the same institutions and places as whites.
I do not know of any homosexuals who are asking to be called heterosexuals. That is not what homosexuals want; they want access to the same institution to which heterosexuals have access, namely, the institution of marriage.
I tell my Conservative friend that allowing homosexuals access to the institution of marriage will actually strengthen that institution, which has seen better days. It is heterosexuals who have messed it up: the divorce rate is now about 50%, many children are born out of wedlock, and so forth. I am not making any value judgments. If there is a crisis in marriage today, and I hear my Conservative friends talking about it a lot, it is because of heterosexuals who have decided, rightly or wrongly—I am not making any value judgments—not to attach the same importance to it as they used to.
Homosexuals are people who have fought, spent time and energy, battled ridicule, and been called all kinds of names, for access to the institution of marriage, which is solemnized and accorded great significance all over the world. I would say that giving homosexuals, who have fought so hard for it, the right to marry means opening the door to people who believe in marriage and in this institution, which has no equal and which creates a bond between two people. That would strengthen this institution, which has been quite badly treated by heterosexuals over the last 50 years.
[English]
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate at report stage of Bill C-38.
I want to remind the House that this bill is a cause for celebration among gay and lesbian Canadians. It is a time when our relationships are being recognized, when our fight to be included in a key institution of Canadian society will finally be resolved.
This is not a new fight for gay and lesbian people in Canada. We began this fight over 30 years ago when Richard Vogel and Chris North took their fight for a marriage licence to the marriage office in Winnipeg. They were denied a licence at that time but later found support with the Unitarian Church. This fight has gone on for over 30 years because gay and lesbian Canadians, like other Canadians, believe in the institution of marriage. Many gay and lesbian Canadians want to be married because they believe in the commitment and responsibilities that are implied in marriage. That is why couples have fought through the courts to see their ability to be married recognized.
This has not happened because of some errant or wilful judge who wants to upset the apple cart in Canada. It has happened because there are couples who want their relationships recognized in exactly the same way that heterosexual relationships are recognized in this country, and who want access to the important institution of marriage. They do it because they believe in the institution of marriage and they want to be accepted into that important institution in our society on the same basis as other Canadians.
This is an important equality issue for gay and lesbian Canadians and indeed for all Canadians. It is important that our relationships are recognized, that we have the access to the stability that that recognition will offer, and that our children have access to stable families as well. It is also important that when our relationships fail we have access to the mechanisms of our law that allow us to deal fairly and justly with the dissolution of that relationship.
These are all important things that are covered in Bill C-38. This is a reason to celebrate. This is an important step forward for our society and for all Canadians. I do not want to lose that important aspect of this legislation. This bill on civil marriage will ensure that gay and lesbian Canadians have access to this key institution of our society on an equal basis.
The bill before us at report stage has been amended and further amendments are being proposed. Let me just say that we in this corner of the House do not support the amendments we are debating in Group No. 1, because these are amendments that seek to essentially gut the legislation and change fundamental aspects of it. We will not be supporting the amendments in Group No. 1.
Let me say as well that the bill before us was amended at committee. We have heard from other speakers this morning about the large number of people who have spoken on marriage over the past two and a half years. Over 450 witnesses appeared before the justice committee in the last Parliament on this issue, and almost 60 witnesses appeared before the legislative committee in this Parliament on this current bill.
In the legislative committee a vast majority, over two-thirds, of the witnesses we heard were people who had concerns about this legislation. They had a hearing at the committee. They were not always agreed with, but they were always listened to with care and with respect.
The bill was amended at committee in ways that provide greater reassurance. Those are not amendments that I thought were necessary. I thought the bill in its original form was clear in its intent and was clear that it protected religious freedom in Canada, but we heard regularly at the committee that more reassurance might be helpful, so the committee did accept several amendments. One is an additional preambular clause that states:
|
Whereas it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage; |
That is an important addition to the bill, even though preambular clauses are interpretive clauses. They help us understand the intent of the legislation, so that was an important addition and one which the committee made willingly. I did not think it was necessary, especially given the other clauses in the preamble which make the commitment to freedom of religion very clear.
(1325)
As well, for greater certainty, another interpretive clause was added to clause 3 of the legislation. Clause 3 states:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
The committee in its wisdom decided to add clause 3.1 to add even greater clarity on that issue. That clause reads:
|
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. |
I do not know what could be clearer in terms of interpreting this legislation to guarantee religious freedom in Canada and to guarantee the freedom of those religious organizations which do not, for whatever reason of their beliefs or theology, feel that they would be able to solemnize the marriage of a gay or a lesbian couple. It is very clear; it was clear previously, but it is now absolutely crystal clear. We have gone out of our way to make this absolutely well known in this legislation. The amendment introduced by my colleague from the Bloc goes even further to grant that reassurance.
One of the things we heard at the committee hearings was concern about the charitable status of organizations, religious organizations in particular. The amendment proposed by my colleague from the Bloc goes some way to offer reassurance on that score as well. Let me read it again:
|
Section 149.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2): |
|
(6.21) For greater certainty, subject to subsections (6.1) and (6.2), a registered charity with stated purposes that include the advancement of religion shall not have its registration revoked or be subject to any other penalty under Part V solely because it or any of its members, officials, supporters, or adherents exercises, in relation to marriage between persons of the same sex, the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. |
We are very clear with this amendment as well. There is no threat to the charitable status of religious organizations because they hold a different view of marriage than the one put forward in the civil marriage act.
This legislation has taken great care to offer reassurance on the issue of freedom of religion. At the committee I do not think anyone expressed doubt or fear about the guarantees of religious freedom provided by the charter. I know of no witness who was able to provide an example to show that any religious institution had seen a failure in that protection of religious freedom. They could give us no explicit example of where the guarantees for religious freedom in the charter had failed in the past. There is no expectation on my part or on the part of others that will be the case in the future. The guarantee of religious freedom in the charter and in the Canadian Human Rights Act is solid. Equality rights do not necessarily trump religious freedom as we have heard from time to time.
We need to be very clear that religious freedom is important in Canada, but it cuts the other way as well. There are religious organizations in Canada that seek to marry gay and lesbian couples and want to do it in exactly the same way they do it for their heterosexual members. Currently that is not possible in some provinces where the court decisions are not in effect and they cannot legally marry gay and lesbian couples. This is an important issue of religious freedom from that side of the coin as well. Religious organizations that do support same sex marriage should have the ability to follow through on their belief and their doctrine in that regard and solemnize those marriages. This is important legislation for those organizations as well.
We have had a lot of debate on this issue. The justice committee toured Canada and heard from over 450 witnesses. Debates have been held in the House. Debates have been held in society from coast to coast to coast. There was a very thorough hearing of Bill C-38 by the legislative committee.
The majority of Canadians want us to get on with this legislation, whatever their views are on Bill C-38. They want us to get to the other issues that are before Parliament and move along. We have had a long debate with respect to Bill C-38.
(1330)
As I said, we in this corner of the House cannot support the amendments in Group No. 1. However, we are glad that the bill is back on the agenda of the House and look forward to its passage in the very near future.
(1335)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member said that we should get on with the affairs of the House. It is the Prime Minister that dragged Parliament and the entire country into this debate. The general populace did not ask for it by any stretch of the imagination.
The member spoke about protection of religious freedoms and worship, which means quite a lot to me. It means a preacher is able to state the truth in the scripture. I can relate to an incident in Calgary. I am sure everyone in the House has heard of Bishop Henry. He made a statement in a letter. I will quote his comment to the media:
|
In one of my previous letters I wrote “Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good”. |
He indicated very clearly what the coercive powers of the state are, which include every area of the Criminal Code and every area of law that deals with traffic, tax policy, education, communications and a whole list of other areas, including marriage. The powers for those who engage in marrying people on the civil side come from the state.
Bishop Henry clearly is a preacher who feels strongly about the word of God and has certainly preached that in all its truth. I know where he got his quote. We only need to look at 1st Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 8 and 9, which talk about that. Bishop Henry will continue to preach from the scriptures. Should he be hauled before the courts for preaching from the scriptures? The member talked about defence of religion. This man has already been hauled before a human rights tribunal twice because somebody did not like what he had to say. Bishop Henry is called to say what the truth is, whether anybody likes it or not. That is the issue at hand.
When it comes to this particular bill, I have a question about the protection of religious freedom. There is none.
Mr. Bill Siksay: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the question was in all of that.
As I explained in my speech, there are significant protections for religious freedom in Canada. The charter has not been proven deficient in this area. In fact, it has been proven vigorous in this area. Even the witnesses appearing before the committee could not point to any place where religious organizations or religious officials had been discriminated against on that basis.
One of the greatest examples is that religious organizations like the Catholic church have different standards when it comes to, say, the access to certain jobs by women within that institution. The ordination of women is not contemplated in the Catholic church. Yet no woman has been able to take the Catholic church to court to sue to be ordained in the Catholic church.
When I raised the issue of why that has not happened with one of the legal experts who was called to testify before the committee, one of the legal experts who was not supportive of Bill C-38, he said that it was unlikely that any lawyer would take such a case because the protections available under the law for religious institutions to make that kind of decision based on their beliefs, their theology, their doctrine were so strong that the case would not succeed.
I have every reason to believe that the same is true for the protections guaranteed around religious marriage. It is very different from civil marriage, which is what we are talking about in the bill. I believe those religious protections are there.
The hon. member in his long comment said that the Prime Minister was the one who had forced the debate on Canadians. I disagree with that too. The debate is before us today because gay and lesbian people in this country sought full equality in a key institution of this society, that institution being marriage. It was not brought upon us by politicians, by the Prime Minister or by activist judges. It was brought about by people who care about their full participation in our society and who care about the institution of marriage, and who believe in that institution and respect it fully.
(1340)
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments that I would like to make prior to getting into the substantive debate. The member indicated that he had not heard of anyone who had been disciplined or brought before commissions or courts because of their views in respect of marriage or the nature of homosexual or heterosexual relationships.
I do not know where this member was, but we heard it constantly. Not only did we hear it constantly before the justice committee, but we heard it constantly before this legislative committee. We have heard about Bishop Henry. He is facing two hearings in front of the Human Rights Commission in Alberta. We have heard that the Knights of Columbia in British Columbia are being taken before the Human Rights Commission because of their refusal to rent their property to celebrate and gay and lesbian marriage.
We have heard about Camp Arnes in Manitoba which has been brought before the Human Rights Commission because it refused to rent its church-sponsored facilities to a gay and lesbian choir. We have heard about the Brockie case, and here we are talking about individuals who for reasons of conscience refuse to do certain things, that has been brought in front of human rights commissions and in fact disciplined.
We have heard about the Saskatchewan bumper sticker case. We have heard of a number of cases. Some of these are still pending, but the point is that these cases are being brought before human rights tribunals on a regular basis. We have heard about Chris Kempling. The B.C. Court of Appeal said freedom of religion only goes so far and upheld the discipline of his losing his job for three months.
I want to move on, however. The issue that this is somehow a human right is something that I find very curious, given the Liberal government's position on this matter.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice say this is a matter of human rights. If this were a matter of human rights, would the government give its backbenchers the right to freely vote on this issue? If this were a fundamental human right, it would stand up and insist that every member must vote because this is a matter of fundamental human rights.
This is a social policy issue that is being dressed up under the charter of rights. The court in the reference case never characterized this as a fundamental human right. To characterize it in that fashion is a fraud. Quite frankly, the approach that the Liberal government has taken by saying that this is a human right but not demanding that its members vote that way demonstrates what kind of a fraud this is.
In respect of the evidence that was heard, we have heard it said there were about 500 witnesses. In fact, the justice committee, which was never allowed to report back because the government put a stop to those hearings, heard approximately 450 or so witnesses, but it never dealt with the bill. It dealt with the general principle of whether or not there should be same sex marriages. So that dealt with not a legislative focus but indeed on the entire concept of same sex marriage.
At second reading this House accepted in principle that there would be same sex marriages and passing it to the committee. In committee, my focus, and many of the members' focus, was not as much on the issue of how we redefine marriage, but how to protect those who for reasons of conscience and religion had concerns about this change. We had approximately 40 witnesses, and it was stated that would be it. It was through the Conservative efforts that another 20 witnesses, and I might say significant witnesses, were brought forward.
We were only allowed to bring 20 witnesses forward because an agreement was made that those 20 would be allowed to appear if we agreed to some kind of closure. That was not my preference, but that is in fact what happened.
In respect of this bill, and the significance and the consequences of this bill, we have heard less than 60 witnesses. This idea that we have been talking about this bill for the past three or four years is simply not correct.
(1345)
I want to talk about how Bill C-38 approaches the problem. This bill is full of unconstitutional provisions. The reason those unconstitutional provisions are put in there is to give the people of Canada hope. Unfortunately, it is false hope, dealing both with the preamble section which talks about the freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the right of religious officials to refuse to perform same sex marriage. Clause 3 states:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the reference case, specifically held that whether that section is substantive or declaratory it is unconstitutional. What the Government of Canada tried to do is hoist this on Canadians and said that it is protecting our religious freedoms and that Canadians do not need any more protection other than what is stated in that.
Clearly, a proper reading of the Supreme Court of Canada decision says this is unconstitutional. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice has not moved his amendment to remove that now that this fraud has been exposed. It is better to have the plain truth staring at us, than to sugar coat it in this type of a fraudulent manner.
The next point I would like to make deals with clause 3.1. Again, this deals with exactly the approach that the Liberal government has taken to this issue. The amendment reads:
|
For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. |
The charter of rights is a constitutional document that protects citizens against the government. We do not violate the charter of rights, as some Liberals have suggested, by expanding the rights given under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a floor. It is the lowest common denominator that is accepted as the floor of our guarantees.
It says that we can have no greater right of freedom of religion or freedom of conscience or freedom of expression than that which is guaranteed by the charter. It establishes a floor and this section confirms the lowest common denominator.
What many have found out, as Mr. Kempling found out by the B.C. Court of Appeal and others have found out, by saying that we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression, is that what was said or what a person's religious beliefs are, they are beyond the scope of that freedom of expression. It is freedom that goes beyond what is entrenched in the charter.
It gives no more rights and freedoms that are already guaranteed in the charter of rights. That charter has been hollow in terms of protecting rights and freedoms of people like Mr. Kempling. It simply has not granted them.
What needs to happen, if this is to have any substance, is to have the reference removed limiting that right to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and saying Canadians have the right to their freedom of religion without this kind of limitation which we know that the courts consistently put into second place when religious rights collide with equality rights.
This will essentially confirm the continued practice of the courts to affirm equality rights at the expense of religious freedom whenever those two rights collide. It is because equality rights are the new religion of the courts and the Liberal government. They will stomp on religious rights at every opportunity and the courts have demonstrated that in a number of cases.
(1350)
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, while I understand the member opposite and his party are not in favour of full equality for gays and lesbians of this country, there is one thing I still yet do not understand. Where does the member and his party stand in terms of the 5,000 to 6,000 legal marriage licences that have been issued to gays and lesbians across the country? What is his plan to deal with those licences? Is it in fact to nullify those particular licences?
Mr. Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, let me deal with the comment that the member has made that our party is not in favour of full equality. Again, he is suggesting that this is a fundamental human right and placing it on the Conservative Party as being the only one in the House who do not accept this as a human right.
There are some members of the Liberal Party, some members of the Bloc and at least one member of NDP who were silenced by their leaders that this simply does not fall within the scope of human rights. This is a social policy issue. We do not need to take the word of the Conservative Party in that respect. There is no other court in the world that has seen this as a human right.
Indeed, the UN has clearly demonstrated, in its decisions through its courts, that this is not a human right. This is a social policy matter that Parliament essentially must determine. The member now stands up and says, “Shame on the Conservative Party. It does not recognize this as a human right”. His own government, not by its words, in which it says it is a human right, but by its actions demonstrate that it is a social policy issue. The member needs to deal with the inconsistency in his own question before he asks questions like that.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding equality. I know we often have individuals comparing this struggle to the race issue and the equality issue in the United States. I think that is a fairly contorted way of doing it. There are obvious marked differences between this discussion that has ensued here and the issue before us.
I would like to have further comments on the issue of equality by my colleague. It seems to me that this is something very basic that most of us would understand. When any of us go into any kind of public setting anywhere in the country, I as a male, my wife, my daughter and my daughter-in-law have to head in a different direction when it comes to going to the restroom facilities. I accept that. It says nothing about the fact that I am more equal than they are. We are equal in every respect from a Canadian point of view, but there are some different paths or routes we take at that point.
There are those who would say that we cannot have different but equal. That is a flaw and fraudulent proposition. There are the basics that we treat people equally, and we give them the same provisions and allowances on things. However, there can still be some different categories set up in society that can be handled in a reasonable way.
With respect to my simple basic illustration, men and women are certainly equal in every respect. There is no question about that. However, when it comes to something as basic as attending a restroom, I do not protest the fact that I have to go in a different direction. It would create great trouble if I were to go into their restroom or vice versa. Therefore, there is a different treatment but equal in every respect. I would like a comment with respect to equality in regard to that.
(1355)
Mr. Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, I suggest the member take a look at some of the debates that occurred when the Charter of Rights was enacted. There were a number of votes and debates that dealt with exactly to what extent the Charter of Rights should constitutionalize or institute constitutionally certain rights and freedoms.
There was a discussion about that. Section 15 was a clearly drawn document. There were a number of discussions about sexual orientation and the definition of marriage. It was concluded that those were issues that did not fall within the scope of the charter. That is where I start the argument. The Parliament that granted the courts this jurisdiction made it very clear what the definition of equality was in the country in terms of a constitutionally protected human right. That formulation was very consistent with the documents of the United Nations.
What we have seen is an attempt by the courts to enlarge that constitutional framework. I would appreciate it if the Liberals were honest about that in the House. This has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This has everything to do with a social policy and they should not attempt to masquerade it as a matter of human rights. It was a matter of social policy that was specifically left within the jurisdiction of Parliament to determine.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in the whereas clauses in the bill there is reference to freedom of conscience and religion. Clause 3 deals only with religious beliefs. The question for Canadians becomes whether matters of conscience as they relate to individuals and not members of religious groups will also be covered and it appears not.
Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Vic Toews: Madam Speaker, the member makes a good point. Even though clause 3 in its entirety is unconstitutional, if the government had any consistency, it should have taken that preamble clause and placed it into the substance so it would be in clause 3. That would protect the freedom of conscience and religion to some extent.
There is still the caveat that if we protect freedom of conscience and religion to the extent that it is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, there is a ceiling to that right beyond which it is not protected. That conscience, religion and expression is then subject to attack by the courts and human rights tribunals. However, with regard to the point the member makes about protecting the conscience aspect, that preamble clause should have been put into clause 3. Clause 3 itself in its entirety is unconstitutional.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[English]
Habitat for Humanity
Hon. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Habitat for Humanity, Peterborough, is a local volunteer organization that seeks to provide affordable housing for low income people in our community. It builds homes with partner families, using donations from businesses, churches, service clubs and individuals, donations of capital or in kind.
With this help, Habitat builds simple homes with the aid of volunteers, professional tradespeople above all with the hard work, at least 500 hours, of the partner families. The families become homeowners and take on all the responsibilities of ownership.
A number of homes have been and are being built in Peterborough. In addition, Habitat has opened a re-store staffed by volunteers where people can buy recycled construction materials at reasonable prices. All proceeds go toward Habitat's work.
Habitat for Humanity and its volunteers are making a real difference in Peterborough.
* * *
Rail Transportation
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Madam Speaker, earlier this month a constituent of mine from Didsbury, Alberta was killed when his vehicle slammed into the side of a train.
This has been an ongoing problem for those of us who live in rural ridings. We have repeatedly asked the transport minister for all rail cars in Canada to have proper side reflectorization. I know the minister agrees that this is important, but the best he can promise is a seven year timetable to achieve this goal.
I realize that it might take this long for all U.S. trains to meet this timetable, but why is it not an immediate rule for all Canadian owned trains?
When we see the amount of money that is wasted daily by the government with gun registries and so forth, surely we can come up with the money for something this important. Surely this could be made a priority.
The value of life of rural Canadians seems to be forgotten by the government.
* * *
(1400)
Parliamentary Interns
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding contribution of the 10 parliamentary interns who have been working on the Hill since last October. For 35 years the House has been fortunate, blessed to welcome talented young university graduates who are selected from across the country.
This year Joshua Alcock, Jeffrey Bell, Karen Diepeveen, David Hugill, Mélisa Leclerc, Jonathan Manes, Katrina Marsh, Jay Nathwani, Althia Raj and Tony Romanelli have worked in the offices of 20 members from all parties.
[Translation]
I would like to highlight the contribution made by these young people, including Jonathan Manes, who worked in my office. I would also like to congratulate Jean-Pierre Gaboury and the former program administrator, JoAnne Cartwright. My thanks to these young people, and I hope to see them again some day on the floor of this House.
* * *
Maison Aube-Lumière
Ms. France Bonsant (Compton—Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Maison Aube-Lumière welcomes patients with terminal cancer. This facility has set a noble and difficult task for itself, that of enabling family and friends to share a loved one's final moments in a calm and serene environment where there are no time constraints, while providing special care for the patient.
At the invitation of Rita and Donald Dugal and Marie-Paul Kirouac, I became the honourary chair of the second walkathon for the Aube-Lumière.
I am pleased to report that the 2005 walkathon was a great success and raised over $12,000. I want to thank the organizers of this fine undertaking, Rita and Donald Dugal of Cookshire, and the many folks who took part in the walk or made it a success through their donations.
* * *
[English]
High School Graduation Ceremonies
Mr. Michael Savage (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, students from four high schools in my riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour have attended graduation ceremonies, like their many counterparts across Canada.
This is a time of change and a time of promise for these students. I congratulate them on their success and thank their teachers for their energy and dedication to teaching.
I was disappointed that I was unable to attend the ceremonies due to responsibilities here in Ottawa. One of my favourite things to do as an MP is to visit local high schools, to engage in conversations on many subjects and to learn from students their views on such areas as equality, justice and the environment.
It is young people like Craig Jennex, valedictorian from Prince Andrew High, who spoke very eloquently and who reflected on what lies ahead for the students. Many people have commented to me on his speech and how inspiring it was, as well as student leaders like Patrick Connor and Shauna Marsh.
There will be challenges and opportunities for these students. There will be the cost of tuition and the barriers it creates for many, but as they embark on their challenges, all of us here are reminded of our duty to ensure that all Canadians have opportunities to succeed. It also reminds us to congratulate those who have reached this milestone in their lives.
* * *
Health Care
Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month the Supreme Court of Canada stated that Canadians were dying due to wait times. At the health committee two weeks ago, a Liberal MP blasted her own government for its inaction.
The court decision proves that Liberal mismanagement is wreaking havoc on the health of Canadians. Nowhere else is this more evident than in rural Canada where emergency rooms are being closed, expectant mothers are being forced to travel hundreds of kilometres to see a pediatrician, and family doctors are closing their practices.
As a member of Manitoba's provincial legislature for nine years, I witnessed first-hand the cutbacks in federal health care spending during the current Prime Minister's tenure as finance minister. It is time the Prime Minister acknowledged what the Supreme Court has stated and what Canadians, especially rural Canadians, have known for years: the health care system is broken and his government is responsible.
Canadians deserve a better health care system, but first they deserve an apology from the Prime Minister.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Graduation Ceremonies
Mr. Jean-Claude D'Amours (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, I have had the opportunity to attend a number of graduation ceremonies in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, in New Brunswick.
[English]
Even if I were unable to take part in all graduation ceremonies because of my schedule, I really enjoyed being present at a few of them.
[Translation]
Every year, at the end of June, thousands of high school and college students receive their diplomas. This marks the end of an important period of their life. Our young people are thus better prepared to meet the challenges they will face and to attain their personal and professional objectives.
[English]
As the member of Parliament for Madawaska—Restigouche, I would therefore like to congratulate all the graduates of my riding.
[Translation]
I would also like to congratulate all graduates on the efforts they have put into their studies and wish them success in the future, which looks very bright for them.
* * *
House of Commons Pages
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a year now, we have had the privilege of working with young women and men whose futures are very bright: the pages of the House of Commons.
Each year, 40 young people are chosen from over 300 applicants from every region of Quebec and Canada to be pages in the House of Commons during their first year of university.
Over the course of the year, these pages have provided services that are indispensable to the operation of Parliament, and they deserve our recognition for their dedication, discretion and competency in fulfilling their duties to all members of the House.
It has been a pleasure to work with and get to know these students, formally and informally. We hope that this experience will help them to better understand and appreciate the world of politics. We hope their future is everything they hope and dream it will be.
* * *
[English]
Pride Week
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, residents of Toronto and visitors from across the world joined together last Sunday to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Pride Week, a celebration of the gay and lesbian community. The parade was one of the largest in the world.
This year's grand marshal was Mr. Salah Bachir. In choosing Mr. Bachir, the pride committee was recognizing the seemingly endless charitable work of this great philanthropist and humanitarian. Mr. Bachir has helped to raise over $5 million for the 519 Community Centre in Toronto. Of this, $750,000 was a personal contribution. He is also a member of the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research and has worked tirelessly in support of this cause.
Mr. Bachir is a true community leader. It is indeed appropriate that he served as the grand marshal of this year's Toronto pride parade.
* * *
Agriculture
Mr. Ted Menzies (Macleod, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the confirmation of a positive case of BSE in the American cattle herd has shown what producers around the world have known for years: that we are all in this together.
While this case is unfortunate, it was not unexpected. It provides an opportunity for the Canadian government to truly commit to the fight for Canadian cattle producers and return cross-border trade to pre-2003 levels. Canadians need real leadership and a government that works for increased global trade for all sectors of the Canadian economy, not just the unbalanced trade deficits with which the Liberals have become satisfied.
As Canadians enjoy their well-earned summer holidays, the Conservative Party of Canada will continue to listen to small and large business owners and work to ensure Canada harnesses our potential in new and emerging markets.
* * *
Government Accomplishments
Mr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the significant accomplishments the government has spearheaded in the House of Commons during the spring session of Parliament.
Of the 70 bills introduced by the government, I am proud to highlight the recent passage of the progressive Liberal budget. The budget will lay the groundwork for a new deal for Canada's cities and communities, a national child care and early learning system and new financial help for students and seniors.
However, there is much more. From land claim agreements for the Labrador Inuit to the passage of a veterans charter, to a historic 10 year plan to strengthen health care, the government is planning for the Canada of tomorrow.
Having retained the confidence of the House in over 40 tests during an eight month period, we are proud of our record of achievement. Looking back at the majority governments of the mid-1980s and early 1990s and the minority governments before them, I am pleased to say that the legislative record of this Parliament is second to none.
* * *
Make Poverty History Campaign
Ms. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Make Poverty History, la lutte contre la pauvreté, campaign seeks more and better aid, trade, justice, debt relief and an end to child poverty. I encourage all members of the House to support this issue by wearing one of the white wristbands which are available in the lobby.
In beautiful Simcoe this Canada Day weekend, the Live 8 concert will be held to remind the world about the plight in Africa. The government also needs to be reminded about the tsunami victims in southeast Asia.
Just last week we learned how the government has failed to deliver almost two-thirds of its tsunami relief. In fact, the Liberal government's record on international assistance is the worst in our nation's history.
I ask the minister opposite to carefully consider the pledge she is making before she slides a Make Poverty History band onto her wrist. I would also like her to consider the Conservatives' call for waiving the Live 8 concert fee.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
New Chief of Kanesatake
Mr. Bernard Cleary (Louis-Saint-Laurent, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Mohawk community of Kanesatake has a new grand chief, Stephen Bonspille. This win puts an end to many months of political friction.
Despite some apprehensions, the election campaign and election day went very well. Ghislain Picard, the regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations for Quebec and Labrador, did an excellent job as facilitator.
With this democratic decision, the people of Kanesatake have taken full control over their autonomy again. We need to give the new chief and his community the opportunity and time to work together and reach their full potential.
The federal government must do everything it can to support the people of Kanesatake in reaching that potential.
I want to congratulate the new chief and wish him every success in his new position.
* * *
[English]
Multiculturalism Day
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Conservative Party, to rise in recognition of June 27 as Canadian Multiculturalism Day.
It is a time for all Canadians to reflect on the contributions that cultural communities have made to the enrichment of our heritage in which all Canadians share.
Multiculturalism Day is one that promotes diversity and understanding that makes Canada unique among nations and the envy of the world.
It is only fitting that I note with great pride June 27 and acknowledge the hard work, challenges and immense sacrifices that all Canadians have made to the strengthening of our society.
The Conservative Party, by introducing the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, is committed to breaking down barriers and promoting understanding so all Canadians can enjoy the richness that our nation affords.
* * *
Sound and Light Show
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a great announcement for all the people who live in Ottawa, Gatineau or any Canadian citizen coming to Ottawa this summer.
The popular Sound and Light Show on Parliament Hill is ready for another summer season starting July 5 and running until September 11. The theme for this year's show is “Canada: The Spirit of a Country”.
This inspiring show uses fantastic lighting effects and impressive, gigantic images projected onto the Parliament Buildings and the Peace Tower. It is woven with a rich tapestry of words, music and sounds to tell the story of Canada, a nation of communicators.
Everything that makes Canada spectacular has challenged us to become some of the best communicators in the world. I ask everyone to come and share the culture, landscapes and achievements that make our nation unique; come celebrate the spirit of a country.
The Sound and Light Show is a half-hour bilingual program that runs summer evenings on Parliament Hill, an extraordinary place to watch a show, and is free of charge. I highly recommend that all Canadians come and watch this spectacular nighttime show on the lawn of Parliament Hill.
* * *
[Translation]
Mondial des Cultures
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago, when the Festival mondial de folklore de Drummondville, now the Mondial des Cultures, was created, we were not nearly as multicultural as we are today, especially in Drummondville, where there were very few immigrants. Coming up with the idea of creating an international festival of world cultures here required a great deal of imagination.
This year's lineup includes 20 acts, from Croatia, South Korea, Mexico, the Basque region and Romania, and also the Trinity Irish Dancers from New York and, for the first time, a troupe from Haiti. This is what makes Drummondville the capital of the world!
This year's event features the voice, the expression of language and peoples. The program includes the Great Voices of Bulgaria, Corneille, Véronique Claveau, Martin Giroux, Julie Lauzon and the Artzimut choir.
The Bloc Québécois commends the Mondial des Cultures de Drummondville for its excellent work and invites the public to join the festivities from July 7 to 17.
Have a good festival.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Satellite Radio
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has been almost two weeks since the CRTC decision on satellite radio and we have heard nothing but static and white noise from the Liberal government.
This decision is a digital stake through the heart of the Canadian Broadcasting Act. The CRTC has tossed overboard francophone radio. The CRTC has tossed overboard aboriginal radio. The CRTC has tossed overboard ethnocultural radio.
Most of all, the CRTC has overturned the fundamental principles of Canadian content in Canada.
What have we won? This opportunity for the CBC to hang on the coattails of the big U.S. machine in the biggest cultural dumping scheme in radio history.
The CRTC says that it is okay to have one Canadian voice in 10 on our airwaves. Why the silence from the heritage minister? Why the lack of action from the government?
We are calling on the Liberal cabinet to overturn this decision and send a clear message that it will fight for Canadian voices on our airwaves.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Air-India
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, during the trip to Ireland it was more than apparent that the victims' families were not satisfied with the government's handling of the Air-India issue, and neither are most members of Parliament.
On April 12 a majority of the members of the House voted to direct the government to immediately hold a public inquiry into the Air-India issue.
Will the Prime Minister honour the will of the House, yes or no?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the memorial that was held in Ireland was very emotional, and justifiably so this being an enormous Canadian tragedy.
At the meeting, as we have in the past, the hon. Bob Rae met with the families, as did I, and have said that once Mr. Rae has completed his examination and his discussions with the families, the option that the government will take will follow that recommendation in terms of the nature of how we should come to the answers that they and the country justifiably require.
* * *
Health
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the following is a second example of the government's failure to act on the decisions of Parliament.
On April 20 the House unanimously called for the immediate compensation of all hep C victims and yet the government has still not spent one additional dime.
Before the House breaks for the summer could the Prime Minister tell us why the hep C sufferers have still not received the promised compensation?
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that this is an issue that is before the courts. As well, there are lawyers talking to other lawyers from both of the classes, the class of 1986 to 1990 and the class of pre-1986 and post-1990. They are engaged in discussions.
There is no question that there is a will on the part of the government to ensure all of the victims are adequately compensated.
* * *
Transfer Payments
Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that when they were talking to Jean Chrétien's lawyers, unlike the hep C or Air-India cases, they were able to get immediate action and immediate agreement.
[Translation]
I have a third example. On November 2, 2004, the House passed a resolution calling on the government to recognize the existence of the fiscal imbalance. Almost eight months later, the Prime Minister still has not reacted.
Is the Prime Minister close to admitting that the fiscal imbalance exists?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have pointed out in the House on a number of occasions, federal transfers to the provinces are now at an all-time record high. Over the course of the next 10 years they are scheduled to increase by another $100 billion.
In addition to that, the government will continue to look for ways in which it can cooperate with the provinces and build an ever stronger federation.
* * *
The Budget
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the Liberals cut a deal with the separatists to ensure that the socialists had the only winning number in the Liberal lotto that week with an estimated jackpot of $4.6 billion. That is $132 for every man, woman and child in Canada and $530 in extra taxes for a family of four.
What is the next deal that the Liberals will cut to stay in power and how much will it cost Canadians?
(1420)
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition stood in their places on February 23 when the budget was presented and said that it was a good budget and that it was a budget that they could support.
That remained their position for about seven weeks and then they flip-flopped. They reversed themselves 180°. They swallowed themselves whole and caused absolute chaos for six weeks. The end result is that the House has adopted a good budget balance.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will not hold it against the minister for not answering the question. I know he did not actually get to participate in helping to form this part of the budget, as he would like to call it.
I am wondering though if he could do us all a favour. I wonder if he could ask the leader of the NDP if the NDP will be submitting more spending demands as the price to keep the corrupt government in power. Would he ask the leader of the NDP that for us?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be as snide and as rude as he chooses to be. The fact is that we are determined on this side to make this Parliament work. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. They want parliamentarians to behave, not as juvenile delinquents but as adults who have the goodwill and the good interest of this country at heart.
We did that. We proposed a budget, we negotiated some further amendments to it and that budget is good for all of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, nearly 300 people from the Solidarité sans frontières coalition walked 200 kilometres from Montreal to Ottawa to protest the fate of out of status immigrants and refugees. This protest march clearly demonstrates the government's go slow approach to assuming its responsibilities. For example, it still has not implemented the refugee appeal division.
Given that everyone, including the UN, is calling for the implementation of the refugee appeal division, when will the government finally put it in place?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already said in the House that I am waiting for the final report including an analysis of the current situation. As we know, six months ago we enacted the legislation allowing us to analyze the trends, measures and their effects on those seeking political refugee status. Once the analysis has been completed, we will make decisions and announce them to the House.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask the current government to comply with the legislation it passed three years ago? We are not asking for the impossible: legislation was adopted three years ago. We are merely asking it this: would it be possible to implement this legislation? People are waiting, people without status, refugees who are in precarious situations. And the minister is thinking, one thought at a time.
Could the government do away with the red tape and simply implement this legislation?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the separatists will do well to talk to his member who sits on the parliamentary committee that demanded an in-depth study from the minister and the department, which should be ready six months later. The six months are not yet up.
Does the hon. member not want me to pay attention to the member's interventions?
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is trying to avoid the issue. The government got the House to adopt a new Immigration Act in 2001. Until now, the refugee appeal division has been left behind, while the minister had promised to give his answer as to its implementation by the end of June 2005. We are at the end of June 2005, and three years later, the refugee appeal division is not in effect.
How can the minister justify failing to comply with the law adopted by Parliament and delaying the implementation of the appeal section, when the UN, Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
(1425)
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the UN has said that Canada is the world leader in the treatment it gives refugees and seekers of political asylum. The world leader. Last year, we accepted 22% more than the previous year. So, if there is a problem, perhaps the ladies and gentlemen of the separatist party are beginning to see how Canada works.
Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the UN committee against torture says the exact opposite to what the minister has just said. According to this committee, there is no recourse to appeal a negative decision on its merits.
So, I again ask the minister why is he still refusing to comply with the legislation passed by this Parliament at the request of his government? Why?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we always comply with the law, but it has to be understood that laws are there to help citizens and those who decide to make Canada their country. The facts must be taken into account. The facts are that many more refugees have been accepted in Canada than were last year.
We have systems in place for appeals and we have the report of the standing committee of the House, which recommends that studies be done and that a response be provided after the end of June.
* * *
[English]
Ethics
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal. Her family uses temporary workers systematically in the large company owned by the family and yet she is in charge of policy affecting these very workers. It is a clear-cut conflict of interest, because what is good for Magna may not be good public policy.
The Prime Minister recuses himself from decisions regarding shipping policy. How is he going to instruct the human resources minister when it comes to decisions affecting temporary workers?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as with all of these issues, ministers who are in a position where advice is required seek it from the Ethics Commissioner. The minister in question has done that. She will be guided by the counsel and the advice of the Ethics Commissioner
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, whether or not that is going to turn out to be satisfactory remains to be seen, but here is the problem. We have a minister who is responsible for regulating the hours of work under EI and has very close connections with a firm that is one of the biggest users of temporary workers, yet she is also responsible for cleaning up government and how it works.
What sort of instruction will the Prime Minister give to the minister about how to clean up her own situation?
Hon. Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like other ministers, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is required to file a comprehensive disclosure statement and to abide by any directions, as the Prime Minister said, the Ethics Commissioner may make. The Privy Council Office also works closely with the Office of the Ethics Commissioner to identify agenda items for cabinet that may require the recusal of ministers.
So in fact a direct response to the member opposite who asked the question is that the PCO will be working directly with the Ethics Commissioner. Where there is a requirement for recusal, the minister will be required to recuse herself.
* * *
Technology Partnerships Canada
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week I searched the Technology Partnerships Canada website for a list of current repayments of the more than $2.7 billion that has been loaned out. There was a link, but it did not work.
Today the link on the TPC website to the repayment schedule has been erased completely, as if it was never there in the first place. Why did Industry Canada remove the link to the list of TPC repayments? What is the minister trying to hide?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the link has been erased, it is for reasons that I am unaware of. It was certainly not by design. We are very committed to disclosing all the information that companies will permit us to disclose subject to commercial considerations.
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this vanishing link to repayments is a classic example of the mismanagement and secrecy that surrounds this whole program. They did the same thing when we asked about job creation figures. They removed that from the website.
The industry minister refuses to release the results of the forensic audit of TPC. Now he even refuses to allow the public to see how much of its money has been repaid under this program. Will the industry minister commit today in the House to put the repayments back on the website and will he release the results of this audit today?
(1430)
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we will put the repayment schedule back on the website.
I have said before that I will be releasing the results of the forensic audit. Whether I do it today or not is uncertain, but it will be very soon.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has acknowledged in this House that $2 million of TPC money has been paid to the wrong people and not to legitimate companies seeking funding.
Has the minister issued an order that no officer of TPC is to meet in the future with lobbyists on behalf of companies seeking TPC grants? Has he put a stop to it?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know a lot about TPC because a half a million dollars in funding has gone into his riding. I am sure he is up to speed.
There is no prohibition against the use of consultants under the TPC program. The prohibition is a government-wide prohibition against the payment of contingency fees that create a moral hazard for people in government and for consultants and which we do not want to put up with even though in many cases it provides a very positive service to the companies concerned.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is typical Liberal rhetoric. Despite admitting that $2 million in TPC funds has already been misappropriated in the form of kickbacks to Liberal lobbyists, the minister refuses to put a stop to it.
Now he is asking the public to trust an audit conducted by his own office. When will the minister take responsibility for his department's failure, ask the Auditor General of Canada to conduct a full audit and stop the misappropriation of these TPC funds?
Hon. David Emerson (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is sounding like a broken record. The reality is that it is against government policy to pay contingency grants or contingency payments. Companies enter into contracts which stipulate that no contingency fee will be paid. Those contracts are still in place. We will enforce them strongly.
In the case of any payments that have been made thus far, we have recovered the money. It is a matter of good, diligent audit that we have captured this and caught it in time.
* * *
[Translation]
Immigration
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while hundreds of people are waiting for their immigrant status to be resolved, we learn that the daughter of a Syrian general, who, until recently, was responsible for the domestic intelligence service, will be coming to Canada shortly to give birth.
How does the government explain that this individual, as well as other members of her family, has a visa to give birth in Canada and is getting Canadian citizenship immediately?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of discussing and elaborating on a personal and individual case. I will make no exception today. We are clearly talking about an individual who received a visa like anyone else who follows the rules and regulations in place.
Mr. Roger Clavet (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about humanitarian reasons, there are much more serious and clear cases that should find favour in the minister's eyes. I am talking about the Mexican family of five children the government plans to deport shortly.
Does the minister realize that he should direct his largesse elsewhere, instead of giving this Syrian citizen the right to have her child in Canada? Instead of chasing separatists all over the place, is the minister capable of doing his job and bringing forth an intelligent solution?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to me, the use of theatrics is no mark of sincerity. On the subject of sincerity, we have a process in place that gives every individual seeking political asylum the chance for a response that complies with international conventions such as the 1951 UN convention. The entire process is based on that convention.
* * *
(1435)
National Defence
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, far from being resolved, the contamination of water in Shannon by solvents used on the Valcartier base is spreading and is apparently now threatening the groundwater in Val-Bélair and possibly the safety of individual wells.
If everything in Shannon is business as usual, as the Minister of National Defence says, why is he delaying the publication of the report in his possession on the extent of the contamination in the region?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already assured the hon. member countless times in this House, we are sharing with the public and the community all the information in our possession about the water contamination in Shannon and the work that has been done. The report the member has referred to a number of times in the House does not exist as such. There is only computer data, and we are sharing that data with the community.
Mr. Guy Côté (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister not to wait 40 years, as was the case with Gagetown.
Now that we know that the contamination is about to spread to a Quebec City suburb, what steps does the minister intend to take in order to adequately protect the public's health and the local environment?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will take measures similar to those we have already taken, in other words, we will continue to work with the community and everyone else to identify the source and nature of the contamination and the measures that need to be taken in order to protect the public.
We have already spent over $21 million in the community. We have provided homes with drinking water. We are continuing to do our job to protect the community and ensure that all contamination problems are resolved.
* * *
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to learn that the daughter and daughter-in-law of a powerful Syrian intelligence chief were given visitors' visas to Canada to allow them to give birth here. The babies automatically get Canadian citizenship, including the future right to sponsor family members into Canada.
Why did the government abuse our immigration system to give backdoor citizenship opportunities to senior members of a foreign dictatorship?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a stretch to talk about the government abusing anything.
We have an individual who made an application. Quite frankly, I asked the standing committee of the House of Commons six questions in view of preparing for citizenship legislation that was forthcoming. She is a member of that citizenship committee and I am looking for a response that would address one of these issues.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the decision to approve these visas would automatically have triggered security and political concerns. Statesman category protocols govern such high risk and sensitive cases. This means our government deliberately chose to allow queue-jumping in these applications. Sources say that it is common for the children of senior regime figures to travel to Canada to give birth.
How can there be trust in Canada and in our immigration system when our own government gives out visitors' visas for political favour?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would prefer to get off that particular line. There is no granting of any of these visitors' visas for political favours. That is a regrettable and reprehensible accusation on her part.
She should perhaps concentrate on getting forward a report, as asked, about how to address larger citizenship issues in that committee rather than repeat those same impeccable sources that nobody can identify.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals politicize visitors' visas and ministerial permits and continue to allow the abuse of our immigration system. The daughter-in-law of the notorious Syrian general, Bahjat Suleiman, was issued a visitor's visa to allow her to give birth in Canada so that the baby would automatically be a Canadian citizen. Now the general's pregnant daughter has been issued a visitor's visa so that she can give birth in Canada.
Why should Canadian citizenship be treated like a political favour?
(1440)
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to an earlier question, I am not sure that theatre is to be confused with sincerity.
The fact is, judging by the popular press, that someone made an application for a visitor's visa and now we have jumped to a series of other conclusions. I do not know whether we ought to do that. Quite frankly, these fall in the realm of some of the questions that I asked the standing committee to address in preparation for presentation of citizenship legislation that would include, among other things, how one acquires citizenship, how one might lose it, and the--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fleetwood--Port Kells.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this unacceptable backdoor practice must stop and the visa that has been issued to the general's daughter must be revoked.
General Suleiman supported the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister in February. Why is it the practice of the government to issue visitors' visas to family members connected to such a ruthless man while countless other legitimate applicants are turned down?
Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me go over the number of people who do not get turned down. Last year we had 1.1 million, seven digits for those who can count, positive decisions for visitors' visas, temporary work visas, student visas and permanent residencies.
I think the hon. member is trying to create a trend out of one or maybe two decisions that she wants to call into question. If she is serious about it, perhaps she and her colleagues would get to work on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and address the questions on citizenship as asked.
* * *
Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Mario Silva (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.
Many community organizations are continuing to raise concerns about the minister's call for proposals process. They indicate that it disregards the quality of services already in place and creates instability for community service agencies, as well as putting them at considerable disadvantage.
Could the minister indicate what actions her ministry is planning to take to address these concerns?
Hon. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for his fine work on this issue on behalf of his constituents.
The standing committee did excellent work and I am pleased that its recommendations moved toward a more open and transparent process and toward dialogue with our partners.
The minister is studying the recommendations carefully and remains committed to dialogue with the not for profit sector to discuss proposed changes to the calls for proposals process. The consultations are consistent with the recommended procedures outlined in the volunteer sector initiative.
* * *
Canada-U.S. Relations
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have seen over the past decade lower standards of living and a lower quality of life for most Canadians. Most jobs created are now part time or temporary and the average Canadian worker has lost 60¢ an hour in real terms.
While we have seen no progress on softwood lumber and BSE, now we find out that this government is prepared to make even greater concessions to the Bush administration through its backroom deep integration talks. Canadians did not vote for that.
Will this government commit to stop making concessions in secret and ensure that Parliament can openly debate the issue, so Canadians can judge what these talks will cost them?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working with the United States for some time to ensure we have the best possible border between Canada and the United States and the best possible North American regulation systems respecting our identities and our own different ways of doing things. However we also want to ensure they are compatible and are easily making our continent more and more prosperous.
There are challenges out there. There are challenges in Asia and in South America. It is imperative that North America remain the most competitive continent on the planet.
* * *
Foreign Affairs
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the future of North America task force report released May 17 advocated an even deeper integration with the U.S. and Mexico than feared.
Now in lockstep, the North American security and prosperity partnership has convened to deliver, even if it involves forfeiting Canadian sovereignty over labour standards, bulk water, energy, security and even defence.
Will the Prime Minister assure us today that deeper integration will not proceed on any of these fronts without exhaustive consultations with Canadians broadly and without a say by parliamentarians, their elected officials?
(1445)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about deeper integration here. We are talking about working with our neighbours, the United States and Mexico.
This partnership is about a follow up to the three leaders' meeting a few months ago. I am very pleased with the progress we are making in this partnership with the Mexicans and the Americans to not only ensure we respect the workers of our respective countries but to ensure we have a competitive economy in which we continue to create good and great jobs for our people.
* * *
[Translation]
Nuclear Reactors
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, MDS Nordion signed a contract with our atomic agency to build two reactors. The initial cost was $140 million, and delivery was to be in 1999. Here we are in 2005, and still no reactors. A delay like this hurts our reputation as a world leader in nuclear medicine. In addition, under the contract, the government is responsible for half the cost overrun.
Can the minister tell us how much it is and when the project will be completed?
[English]
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not have the exact costs but Canada is a leader in this area and we will continue to be a leader in this area.
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that answer is not good enough. That is no excuse to escape parliamentary oversight.
Furthermore, these delays are forcing MDS Nordion to import bomb grade uranium material into Canada, which the New York Times last week criticized as a security threat.
Reports indicate that this project is $200 million to $350 million over budget. This House deserves to know how much of a hit the public purse will take. The NDP deserves to know how much of a hit its budget will take. Canadians deserve to know how big the security threat is.
Will the parliamentary secretary tell this House how much this will cost us, $100 million, $200 million or $300 million? How much is it?
Hon. Larry Bagnell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, the exact cost has not been finalized but we will keep safety as our priority. Canada is a leading commercial aspect in this industry.
* * *
Justice
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no one in this country should be exempt from the Criminal Code. Canadians believe everyone is equal before and under the law.
Bill S-39, however, exempts military personnel who are convicted of sex offences from being placed on the national sex offender registry.
Will the justice minister commit to the House today that he will not support a two tier justice system and, consequently, will not be supporting Bill S-39.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we support a system of equality before the law, a single tier justice system.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was this party on this side of the House that pushed the government to bring in the national sex offender registry. The Liberal government dragged its feet for years and years. In fact, the Liberal government's dragging of its feet forced the provinces in some cases to establish their own sex offender registry.
Temporary measure or not, will the Minister of Justice vote against exemptions for military members from being placed in the national sex offender registries?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member that the military's justice system is covered by the National Defence Act, not the Criminal Code, and there is a reason for that. There is a specific national justice system that governs the military. I can assure the hon. member that the military will be covered by the sex offender registry in the same way as civilians but they will be covered in a way that is consistent with the way in which the military can do its job.
The member knows that. The bill is clear about that. There will be no exemption. It is not two tier. It is about creating a system that works for the military as well as civilians.
* * *
[Translation]
Agriculture
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the council of environment ministers of the European Union decided to maintain the right of member states to ban certain types of genetically modified corn and rapeseed in order to protect public health and the environment, a right that is currently in dispute before the WTO.
Given Europe's decision to protect public health and the environment, will Canada consider today withdrawing its complaint before the WTO?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here in Canada we have a very clear way in which we handle GM products. It is very intense. We deal with a scrutiny in terms of any product that would come to market. Our absolute priority is to ensure the safety of Canadian consumers. That is what we do.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada, like the United States and Argentina, is contesting these bans at the WTO on the basis of freedom of trade, and contends that the product must be proven unsafe before it is banned, while Europe contends that the product must be proven safe before it is authorized.
How can the Canadian government continue its proceedings at the WTO in the name of free trade and ignore the legitimate concerns of consumers over the potential dangers of genetic modification?
[English]
Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's position is not in terms of free trade. It is in terms of protecting Canadian consumers. Before we provide a licence to any product for distribution in this country, we make absolutely certain that we undertake the necessary investigations to ensure it is safe for Canadian consumers. That is what we do in terms of our licensing process. That is what we have done in the past and that is what we will continue to do in the future.
* * *
Vietnam
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, not every Canadian has been made aware of the visit of the Prime Minister of Vietnam to Canada this week, nor are they familiar with the lack of democracy and violations of human rights taking place.
The disrespect for democracy and human rights is so evident that even when the Vietnamese prime minister was holding discussions with the President of the United States last week, 10 Buddhist monks were arrested in Hanoi for exercising democracy.
It is imperative that the Prime Minister of Vietnam be questioned about his government's human rights violations. Will the Prime Minister emphasize this issue with the Vietnamese government's appalling treatment of its own citizens?
Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs raised the issue this morning in his discussions with the Vietnamese officials and I intend to raise it this afternoon in my meeting with the Prime Minister of Vietnam.
[Translation]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the situation in Vietnam is not getting any better. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are subject to the will of the government. Activists are being arrested for no reason and tortured and detained in unacceptable conditions.
The Prime Minister of Vietnam is in Canada today on an official visit.
Will our Prime Minister address the issue of human rights with his Vietnamese counterpart or will he remain silent about it as he did in China?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said yes in English. His response was quite clear to me. I can confirm that this morning I had the opportunity to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister of Vietnam, and we raised these extremely important issues of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
I know that the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to raise these issues with his counterpart, the Prime Minister of Vietnam, this afternoon during our other meetings with this country, with which we have a good bilateral relationship. We work with this country in ASEAN and APEC. It is important that we remain committed to them.
* * *
[English]
Status of Women
Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has tabled four reports dealing with a number of key issues from the funding mechanism of programs available to women's organizations across the country to gender based analysis and the public policy agenda to long-standing, unresolved pay equity issues.
Could the minister outline what actions have been taken in response to the committee's recommendations?
Hon. Liza Frulla (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was honoured to attend the 49th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York where I reaffirmed Canada's strong commitment on the Beijing declaration and platform action of gender equality.
The government announced the creation of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to seek better accountability and also to seek better results on gender equality.
Based on those reports, I will have the pleasure in the fall to present a renewed action report on the gender equality strategy to seek better accountability of the government, its ministry and also its policies.
* * *
(1455)
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week the David Suzuki Foundation released a critical report questioning DFOs ability to fulfill its conservation mandate in the Pacific region. The report states that:
|
Lack of properly funded, trained and located staff has led to a “selective or targeted enforcement” approach. Violators, aware of this attitude, become more willing to take risks. |
Will the minister finally admit that DFO's model of selective enforcement has not worked in the Pacific region and that he needs a different approach to ensure a better result in 2005?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague should be aware that I recently announced an additional $5.2 million in funding for the Pacific region. This will help in terms of enforcement and compliance on the Fraser River and in terms of the science, habitat and fisheries management.
On Friday I had the pleasure of announcing the wild salmon policy, the purpose of which is to protect habitat and biodiversity. We have provided an additional $1.1 million for this year to support science, habitat and fisheries management. This will go a long way to conserve salmon on the west coast.
Mr. Randy Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it only took DFO 14 years to come up with the wild salmon policy that commits a mere $1.1 million and has no implementation plan.
The so-called improvements announced by the minister amount to temporarily shuffling enforcement officers from other parts of B.C. to the lower Fraser River at peak periods apparently. That will just result in new enforcement problems elsewhere in the province.
Why will the minister not accept the recommendations in all the reports that are currently on his desk and permanently assign more enforcement officers to the Fraser River?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend apparently failed to understand when I spoke to the fisheries committee. The additional money we have put into our program on the west coast will allow us to have the officers we have do more overtime, more patrols and more overflights in helicopters. In short, there will be much more enforcement.
* * *
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a newly published book reports that in 2003 more than half of all federal judicial appointees were likely Liberal supporters. The study found that the political affiliation of the candidates is still a significant consideration in the choice of the committee responsible for appointing judges, which was created in 1988.
In light of these revelations, which confirm our worst fears on the lack of neutrality in the process, does the Minister of Justice intend to cooperate fully in overhauling the judicial appointment process started by this House?
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said that the current judicial appointment process is excellent. However, I have initiated a review process. I had a meeting with all the chairs of all the advisory committees, and we will continue to have such meetings.
* * *
[English]
Transport
Mr. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport about the request for proposal issue between the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the Airport Taxi Cab Association.
Last week a protest caused disruptions for the airport users at Pearson International Airport. The airport and highways surrounding the greater Toronto area are vital for the local economy, especially tourism, at this time of the year. Is the minister aware of the issue and what is being done to help resolve this situation?
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his continuing interest in this file. Obviously we are not responsible for the daily administration of the airport. The GTA is responsible. We are following this file very closely because we want the airport to function normally and we want it to see the free flow of traffic.
We are in touch daily with the GTA to ensure that this deal comes to an end. Frankly, we want it to be amicable. We want it to work between the taxis, limos and the airport authority.
* * *
[Translation]
Telecommunications
Mrs. Carole Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1999, Telus and BC Tel merged. In 2000, renegotiation of the collective agreement began between the new entity and the telecommunications workers union. Since then, Telus has refused to bargain in good faith, leading the Canada Industrial Relations Board to conclude that Telus was guilty of unfair labour practices and in violation of federal law.
Will the Minister of Labour and Housing, who has the authority, appoint an arbitrator to resolve the impasse?
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Joe Fontana (Minister of Labour and Housing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member and others who have brought this matter to my attention. Four years is much too long for any two groups to come together.
The parties met on June 22 to June 24. Unfortunately, they did not come to an agreement. I urge both parties to continue to meet. The mediators are ready, willing and able to assist in this. It is absolutely necessary that we do it. There are certain matters before the CIRB and the Federal Court that also have to be taken into account, but we are urging all parties to get to the table and negotiate so we can finally have an adjudication--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill.
* * *
International Aid
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberal members of the foreign affairs committee seemed to think they had a plan for Canada to reach its decades old goal of 0.7% of GDP to go to developmental assistance. It soon became clear that either the Liberals do not have a plan to reach the 0.7% or they do and they have not told the finance minister.
The Prime Minister said that he would not make a commitment even though he believed in 0.7% and would very much like to see Canada get there. However, the finance minister signed on to the Commission for Africa report, which called on developed countries to reach 0.7% by 2015.
Does anyone in the cabinet know if there is a plan to reach 0.7% by 2015?
Hon. Aileen Carroll (Minister of International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it eminently clear, as I have, as has the finance minister, that we recognize how important the 0.7% is as a benchmark. It is a benchmark that Canada wishes to attain and is committed to do so.
Until we can in a very responsible and fiscal manner lay out exactly how we will do so and give that plan, we will not commit to something until we can accompany that commitment with exactly what Canadians would expect of us.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Certificates of Nomination
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 110(2) to table a certificate of nomination with respect to the National Gallery of Canada. This certificate would stand referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
* * *
Government Response to Petitions
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
* * *
Committees of the House
Citizenship and Immigration
Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on an extension of 30 days to consider Bill C-283, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Immigration and Refugee Regulations.
* * *
(1505)
Income Tax Act
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-418, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (vitamins).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to expand the list of allowable medical expense deductions in the Income Tax Act to include expenses incurred for vitamins, supplements, vitamin supplements, mineral supplements, dietary vitamin supplements and dietary mineral supplements.
We are trying to do what we can to increase the ability for Canadians to access natural health products. Also, if these health products are preventive in the workings of our medical system, if they help to reduce the overall costs of our health care system, then we should encourage that.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Breast Implant Registry Act
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-419, An Act to establish and maintain a national Breast Implant Registry.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reintroduce a bill that would establish a national breast implant registry. I am pleased the bill is being seconded by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan because of her work on the Status of Women standing committee pertaining to this very serious issue.
The legislation seeks to establish a registry to monitor implant procedures and to further scientific research. It may not be the whole answer to the problems facing women who undergo breast implants, but it will fill a critical gap in women's health protection by collecting currently unavailable data about implant procedures and data that is needed as a base for informed health-based decisions by women and physicians. It would protect individual privacy while providing an effective means of notifying women of threats to their health.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Petitions
Marijuana
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents calling on Parliament to withdraw Bill C-17 and any legislation designed to decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana. They want to provide increased funding for the RCMP and Canadian police forces and to eliminate grow operations in Canada.
* * *
Autism
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to present a petition from citizens from Ottawa, Hamilton, Pickering, Kingston, and the wonderful community of Timmins, Ontario asking for changes to the Canada Health Act so that we can bring in therapy treatment for children who are suffering from autism spectrum disorder.
* * *
[Translation]
Marriage
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by individuals in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard on Bill C-38. The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the definition of marriage remains the union of one man and one woman.
* * *
Human Rights
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition signed by people from the island of Montreal on respect for the human rights of the Palestinians.
* * *
[English]
Marriage
Mr. Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present on behalf of my riding of Cambridge a petition that does not look like it will go very far and will fall on the deaf ears of the Liberal government. It calls on the government to support and uphold the current definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
(1510)
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today. One is from the good folks of Davidson, Saskatchewan which is in my riding. The petitioners wish Parliament to defend the current definition of marriage.
The second petition also wishes Parliament to defend the current definition of marriage. This is signed by petitioners from across Canada, from not only Saskatchewan, but also Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Saskatoon, Muenster, Bruno, Humboldt and also people outside of my constituency, particular the towns of Estevan, Weyburn and Vanscoy in the province of Saskatchewan.
They petition the House of Commons that whereas marriage is a sacred institution that forms the basis of the family union and whereas Parliament overwhelmingly affirmed its understanding that marriage is the union between a single man and a single woman to the exclusion of all others in 1999, therefore the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the traditional definition of marriage as it has before affirmed.
* * *
Natural Health Products
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two petitions on behalf of the residents of Windsor West. The first relates to Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. The petitioners support that bill because they want Canadians to have greater access to natural health products and to restore freedom of choice in personal health care by enacting Bill C-420.
* * *
Autism
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to autism spectrum disorder.
The petitioners are asking for two very specific things. They ask that the Canada Health Act and corresponding regulations be amended to include IBI and ABA therapy for children with autism as a medically necessary treatment and to require that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism. They also ask for the creation of an academic chair at a university of each province to teach and to improve this situation relating to autism.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that was just approved this morning. It is on the matter that is before the House, the definition of marriage.
The people who have signed the petition state that traditional marriage is the best foundation for raising families and children. They observe that the majority of Canadians favour the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They encourage Parliament rather than the courts to be the reinforcer of the traditional definition of marriage.
* * *
Sudan
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present on behalf of the community in Hamilton a petition flowing from a public event that was sponsored by the Hamilton Jewish Federation and the Muslim Association of Hamilton dealing with the issue of Darfur. I attended that meeting and spoke on behalf of my constituents. This petition is a reflection of the concern that Hamiltonians have. They call on the Liberal government to do much more in Darfur.
* * *
[Translation]
Questions on the Order Paper
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
Request for Emergency Debate
Defoliant Use at CFB Gagetown
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker: I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I seek an emergency debate on the use of chemical sprays, specifically defoliants, used at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown from 1956 to 1984.
Hundreds of civilians and military personnel were exposed to these deadly chemicals, chemicals like agent orange, agent purple and many others which are deadly dioxins.
The government has neglected these people and their communities and has not taken responsibility for this tragedy. The effects of these deadly chemical compounds have lingered and will continue to linger for decades.
As a result of this indiscriminate use of defoliants, there are cancer and cancer related diseases and deaths to prove the point that we are making. These chemicals are deadly. The devastation continues to this day. They simply linger in the ground and in the water supply for decades.
Only a public inquiry will bring out the complete story, all the facts and a level of transparency which so far has been missing. This is not about pointing fingers at government or punishing government. It is simply about righting a wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the only place where that debate can happen is in the House of Commons. I hope you will look favourably upon this request.
(1515)
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for his very able submissions on this point. I know there have been a number of questions concerning the matter raised in the House in the last few weeks. Clearly it is a matter of some concern, but I do not believe it meets the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time. Accordingly I am not inclined to allow the debate at this time.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Civil Marriage Act
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents to speak to Bill C-38 at report stage.
It is interesting that over the course of presenting petitions there were a number of petitions where constituents were calling on Parliament to recognize and to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. To put it another way they were calling on Parliament to affirm marriage in the traditional sense or in the sense that it is universally applied across countries, across cultures, across religions. When I attended various events in my riding, people asked, “Why are you going back next week? What is going on? Why the virtually unprecedented extension of the sitting of the House?” There is only one government bill on the projected order, Bill C-38, which in effect will change the legal definition of the word “marriage” in Canada”.
If Canadians are so concerned, so divided and so upset about changing a fundamental basic institution in our country, why is the Liberal government embarking on this approach? Why did it not look for alternatives that could have accomplished some of the concerns that were being raised?
This has not been the approach that other jurisdictions have taken. In France and Australia, for example, there has been a recognition of the rights of other couples but preservation of what the word “marriage” means.
It has been interesting to see over the last couple of years how the language has changed. This takes to me one of the amendments. In 1999 members across the way, including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and many members on that side and many members in this House, overwhelmingly assured Canadians that Parliament would not only affirm the traditional definition of marriage but would take all steps necessary to protect that definition of marriage in Canada. It was some time later, in 2000, when in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, a clause was inserted which stated:
|
For greater certainty, the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word "marriage", that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. |
The then justice minister and current Deputy Prime Minister spoke at length about the uniqueness of the institution of marriage and that how, as she said, Parliament and the Liberal government had no intention of changing what the word “marriage” meant in Canada.
The reason it is interesting to note that particular clause in the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act that was passed by this House 2000 is that in Bill C-38, clause 15 states:
|
Section 1.1 of the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and the heading before it are repealed. |
It is just that simple. Is it any wonder that there is cynicism out there? Those on the other side give assurances that religious freedoms are going to be protected, that freedom of expression is going to be protected, that changing what the word “marriage” means in our country is not going to have any impact on our country, is not going to have any impact on those that come after us. With a bit of revisionist history however, the Liberals in the year 2005, reach back to the year 2000 and pretend that Parliament at that time did not insert that declaratory clause on what the word “marriage” means. This brings me to one of the amendments. Remember, it states that for greater certainty the bill does not impact on the definition of marriage and then sets out what that definition is.
(1520)
I sat on the legislative committee studying Bill C-38. I have heard the parliamentary secretary say a few things today that I would take issue with. One is that this issue has had a good hearing among Canadians. As members know, we on this side had to fight tooth and nail to get the number of witnesses we did. Theses were witnesses that the parliamentary secretary quoted, witnesses that he now acknowledges were good witnesses. The Liberals fought against including them on the witness list.
It is interesting that, through that committee, one of the amendments to Bill C-38, and this bill can only be described as smoke and mirrors, other than changing what the word “marriage” means in law in Canada, nothing else in the bill is of any legal effect. It does not offer any protection or is of any consequence to Canadians, other than the fact that it changes the definition of marriage.
I would like members to listen to the familiar words and see if this sounds familiar. Clause 3.1 says “For greater certainty”. Again, another assurance using the exact same language. The expression “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” comes to mind. Once again we have members on that side saying “Don't worry about it; this won't impact on you”.
It is just like a couple of years ago when the Liberals said to Canadians not to worry. They indicated that this would not impact on what the word “marriage” meant and that it would not have that effect. Anyone with any common sense would know that was the ultimate conclusion that they were leading to. Now with the same conviction, those on that side are saying “For greater certainty”. I would like to read this provision. It says:
|
For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom. |
That sounds pretty good to me. To someone who is perhaps not a lawyer or to the average Canadian who might read this bill would say that sounds good. That sounds like the government has it covered. Canadians should know as well, as I do, that in law this is a declaratory provision that is not only unconstitutional but it does nothing to protect Canadians. That was the evidence we heard in committee.
We heard a justice department lawyer explain to us, and it is obvious if a person takes a close look at the provision, that this is simply restating that we have certain rights under the Canadian charter of rights. We heard where those rights can lead us. I heard witness after witness give testimony that their rights had been impacted because of the definition of marriage.
We heard at length about Bishop Fred Henry. We heard about marriage commissioners whose livelihood is being affected. We heard about the Knights of Columbus. Here is a real life example. The Knights of Columbus are a religious order of the Catholic church. They are being brought before a human rights tribunal in British Columbia because they will not sanction a same sex ceremony because it violates their religious beliefs. This is not some hypothetical down the road. This is happening right now. Bill C-38 does absolutely nothing to protect religious beliefs.
If we look at Bill C-38, the first clause says it is called the civil marriage act. I want to speak and support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Calgary Southeast that this clause be amended. The reason it should be amended is that there is no civil marriage in Canada. There is no distinction between civil marriage and marriage. There is only one definition of marriage. By even raising that concept that there is somehow two kinds of marriage in Canada is misleading to Canadians. It is creating more smoke and mirrors and clouding the issue. I support taking that out.
Motion No. 2 states that clause 2 be deleted. It says:
|
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. |
I have heard sufficient testimony that leads me to the conclusion that if we change the definition of marriage, it will have an impact on other rights. I am also confident that there are ways to address equality concerns without changing the definition of marriage. That is the Canadian way. That is what Canadians support. They support equality, but they also support this basic institution.
Motion No. 3 would delete clause 3 which says:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
(1525)
We know that the Supreme Court of Canada considered this bill and came to two very ironic conclusions. First, it said it would not say the traditional definition of marriage was unconstitutional and did not rule it unconstitutional. Yet the Liberals will lead us to believe it did. Second, it said a provision like that is ultra vires, outside the jurisdiction of Parliament, and it cannot act to protect religious freedoms. I will be opposing this bill. I urge my colleagues to do so and look for a Canadian compromise.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the member was on the legislative committee at which there were some 60 odd witnesses heard. One of the areas that concerns a number of Canadians and certainly myself is the whole question of the implications to the family, particularly children, with regard to the longer term consequences of changing the definition of marriage.
I would ask the member, did any witnesses that appeared before the committee on that matter provide examples or at least the experiences of other countries or jurisdictions that have moved in the direction of changing or polluting the definition of marriage?
Mr. Rob Moore: Mr. Speaker, the committee heard 60 some witnesses though we were not going to hear that many.
I heard the parliamentary secretary say we heard 400 and some witnesses. That was in another Parliament. As the hon. member knows, that committee was basically hijacked as it was hearing general testimony from coast to coast on whether the Canadian government should appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling regarding the definition of marriage.
As we know, members who supported marriage were pulled off that committee and other Liberal members were inserted who opposed traditional marriage. We know the committee did not even render a report. That is of no benefit. We are in a new Parliament. This bill put before us changes what the word marriage means and we are not given ample time to study it.
The member has raised an important question. There are only two other countries in the world that have changed in law what the word marriage means, so we do not know yet the long term effects. We can hypothesize what the impact could be on changing an institution that predates Canada.
The committee heard testimony from many witnesses. On the protection of religious freedom, for example, I will read an excerpt:
|
The advance of social liberalism necessarily stirs anxieties about cultural and religious freedom. Bill C-38 promises that it won't break into the religious sanctuaries to coerce religious officials to solemnize marriages against their consciences. The fact that this legislation raises the spectre of such draconian action is telling. |
I agree with that 100%. We do not know where this is going to lead when it comes to freedoms. We know, in the original B.C. decision on this issue, that Justice Pitfield ruled that marriage predates Canada. It predates Confederation. Not only is it not for a judge to change what the word “marriage” means, it is not for Parliament to change what the word “marriage” means.
It is interesting how this has been framed as an issue of fundamental human rights. A few years ago members on that side overwhelmingly voted to support the traditional definition of marriage and yet those same members come here and have the gall to suggest this is about fundamental human rights. If this is about fundamental human rights, why are those members not championing this cause? They are not because it is not a fundamental human right. It is a social policy decision and there has not been one court from any national or international body or tribunal that has suggested otherwise.
We do not know where this is going to lead, but it is virtually unprecedented. We know that Sweden, Norway, France and Australia are taking a reasonable approach. They recognize that there are equality rights and access issues raised by the issue of same sex couples, but they have not attempted to change what the word “marriage” means in their countries, nor should we.
(1530)
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by apologizing to the Chair and the House for not being present at noon to formally move my Motion No. 3. It was a misunderstanding on my part and I apologize. I want to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for being alert enough to move the motion on my behalf and for all hon. members for allowing the motion to proceed. Motion No. 3 proposes to remove clause 3 of the bill. Clause 3 reads:
|
It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
Why am I moving to delete this clause? I know that my speech will not change members' minds on the bill. I know that very few members are even listening to report stage debates, much less considering the arguments. I do so in order to state my position for the record, for historians, future generations, and politicians from around the world, present and future, who may study our debates in order to help decide policies in their own countries. Most of all I do it for my children and their children, so they know their dad was there and contributed to the debate as best he could.
I accuse the Government of Canada, the cabinet, the Department of Justice, and the Minister of Justice himself, of legal and intellectual hypocrisy for including this clause. In the reference to the Supreme Court, the Government of Canada asked the Supreme Court of Canada certain questions. The relevant one for our purposes was question no. 1 which asked:
|
Is the annexed Proposal for an Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? If not, in what particular or particulars, and to what extent? |
Section 2 of that proposed act read as follows:
|
Nothing in this Act affects the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. |
That is virtually the same wording as clause 3 of the bill we are debating. The words are not identical, but the intent is 100% the same. How did the Supreme Court of Canada answer the question? It said:
|
Section 2 of the Proposed Act relates to those who may (or must) perform marriages. Legislative competence over the performance or solemnization of marriage is exclusively allocated to the provinces under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867. |
The Attorney General of Canada suggests that section 2 of the proposed act was declaratory, merely making clear Parliament's intention that other provisions of the proposed act not be read in a manner that would trench on the provinces jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. The provision might be seen as an attempt to reassure the provinces and to assuage the concerns of religious officials who perform marriages.
However worthy of attention these concerns are, only the provinces may legislate exemptions to existing solemnization requirements, as any such exemption necessarily relates to the solemnization of marriage under s.92(12). Section 2 of the proposed act was therefore ultra vires Parliament.
While it is true that Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact declaratory legislation relating to the interpretation of its own statutes, such declaratory provisions can have no bearing on the constitutional division of legislative authority. That is a matter to be determined by the courts should the need arise. It follows that a federal provision seeking to ensure that the act within which it is situated is not interpreted so as to trench on provincial powers can have no effect and is superfluous.
The court was asked in question no. 1 whether section 2 of the proposed act was within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament. Because section 2 of the proposed act relates to a subject matter allocated to the provinces, it follows that it does not fall within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament. The answer to the second part of the first question must therefore be no.
(1535)
I repeat the critical lines from the judgment of the Supreme Court:
|
Section 2 of the Proposed Act is therefore ultra vires Parliament...It follows that a federal provision seeking to ensure that the Act within which it is situated is not interpreted so as to trench on provincial powers can have no effect and is superfluous. |
Why would the Minister of Justice, who is required to certify to his cabinet colleagues that the legislation is in his opinion constitutional, insert clause 3 in the face of the clear and unambiguous language of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada?
I accuse the Government of Canada, the cabinet and the Minister of Justice of inserting clause 3 clearly against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada for purely political reasons, namely, as a carrot to entice nervous members of Parliament into voting for this bill. There is only one thing more shameful and incredulous than this tactic and that is that a number of MPs have actually been convinced by it.
I accuse the Government of Canada, the cabinet and the Minister of Justice of disrespect for the very institutions they all call on everyone else to respect, namely, the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated that the words and intent embodied in clause 3 are beyond the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and yet they appear in the bill. What a slap in the face to the very institution that we are told to revere.
Finally, I accuse the Bloc Québécois of not only legal and intellectual hypocrisy but also political hypocrisy. Those members pretend to be the champions for the rights of the province of Quebec, and here they have a clause which the Supreme Court of Canada has said is ultra vires Parliament, that is, beyond the scope of the powers of the federal Parliament. Why has the Bloc not insisted that clause 3 be removed, as it